United States v. June

Editor's Note :

United States v. June

Opinion analysis: Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining is not pre-empted, but the role of legislative purpose remains open for debate – Emily Hammond

Justices send cake sequel back to state court – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Court holds that First Amendment does not apply to private operator of public-access channels – Amy Howe

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 17, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 13, 2019

Linked with:

United States v. Wong

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-1075	9th Cir.	Dec 10, 2014 Tr.Aud.	Apr 22, 2015	5-4	Kagan	OT 2014

Holding: The time limits of the Federal Tort Claims Act, which provides that a tort claim against the United States "shall be forever barred" unless it is presented to the appropriate federal agency for administrative review within two years after the claim accrues and, if it is denied, the claimant files suit in federal court within six months of the denial, are subject to equitable tolling.

Judgment: Affirmed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on April 22, 2015. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia and Thomas, joined.

Opinion analysis: Clear statements, sovereign immunity, and timeliness (Howard M. Wasserman)
Argument analysis: A living Federal Tort Claims Act? (Howard M. Wasserman)
Argument preview: Jurisdictionality, timeliness, and the Federal Tort Claims Act (Howard M. Wasserman)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Mar 7 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 7, 2014)
Mar 28 2014	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 7, 2014.
May 7 2014	Brief of respondent Marlene June, Conservator in opposition filed.
May 27 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 12, 2014.
May 29 2014	Reply of petitioner United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Jun 16 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.
Jun 23 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.
Jun 30 2014	Petition GRANTED.
Jul 23 2014	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 9, 2014.
Jul 23 2014	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 4, 2014.
Sep 4 2014	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 10, 2014.
Sep 9 2014	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)
Sep 9 2014	Brief of petitioner United States filed.
Sep 22 2014	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Sep 24 2014	Record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Ciricuit is electronic and located on PACER.
Nov 4 2014	Brief of respondent Marlene June, Conservator filed.
Nov 7 2014	CIRCULATED.
Nov 10 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Gregory C. Sisk filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Nov 10 2014	Brief amici curiae of National Center for Law and Economic Justice, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Nov 10 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Arizona Association for Justice/Arizona Trial Lawyers Association filed. (Distributed)
Nov 12 2014	Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Nov 12 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)
Nov 12 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Clinic for Legal Assistance to Servicemembers and Veterans filed. (Distributed)
Nov 12 2014	Brief amici curiae of Paralyzed Veterans of America, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 3 2014	Reply of petitioner United States filed.
Dec 10 2014	Argued. For petitioner: Elizabeth Prelogar, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.
Apr 22 2015	Judgment is AFFIRMED and CASE REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined. (Opinion also for No. 13-1074)
May 26 2015	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Virginia’s moratorium on uranium mining is not pre-empted, but the role of legislative purpose remains open for debate – Emily Hammond

Justices send cake sequel back to state court – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Court holds that First Amendment does not apply to private operator of public-access channels – Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the June 13 conference on Monday; the justices granted, vacated and remanded Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, Virginia Uranium Inc. v. Warren, Gamble v. United States and Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill.
On Thursday, we expect the Supreme Court to release opinions in one or more argued cases. The justices will meet for their June 20 conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Gamble v. United States The dual-sovereignty doctrine – under which two offenses are not the “same offence” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns – is upheld.
- Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck Manhattan Community Access Corp., a private nonprofit corporation designated by New York City to operate the public access channels on the Manhattan cable system owned by Time Warner (now Charter), is not a state actor subject to the First Amendment.
- Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill The House of Delegates lacks standing to appeal the invalidation of Virginia’s redistricting plan.
- Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit’s judgment that the Atomic Energy Act does not preempt Virginia’s prohibition on uranium mining in the commonwealth is affirmed.
- Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, when federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf.
- Quarles v. United States Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion statute substantially corresponds to or is narrower than generic burglary for purposes of qualifying for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
- Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service The federal government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Jordan v. City of Darien, Georgia Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim as a matter of law.
- McGee v. McFadden (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred when it found no constitutional error when the state failed to disclose Brady evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch, until the post-trial hearing for a motion for a new trial; (2) whether the state and federal courts’ decisions were contrary to Giglio v. United States, United States v. Bagley, Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois when the state failed to disclose material impeachment evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch who testified that petitioner confessed to him; and (3) whether the state and federal courts erred in finding that trial counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel when he failed to interview Michael Jones and call him as a witness.
- Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano Whether the First Amendment empowers courts to override the chosen legal structure of a religious organization and declare all of its constituent parts a single legal entity subject to joint and several liability.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 49

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 17, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	49
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions