|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-312||9th Cir.||Mar 26, 2018||May 14, 2018||9-0||Roberts||OT 2017|
Holding: The defendants’ appeals challenging the use of full restraints during nonjury pretrial proceedings became moot when their underlying criminal cases came to an end before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit could render its decision.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May 14, 2018.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 29 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 28, 2017)|
|Sep 19 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 13, 2017, for all respondents.|
|Sep 28 2017||Brief amici curiae of Senator Jeff Flake, et al. filed.|
|Sep 28 2017||Brief amicus curiae of California State Sheriffs' Association filed.|
|Nov 13 2017||Brief of respondents Moises Patricio-Guzman, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Nov 13 2017||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Moises Patricio-Guzman|
|Nov 13 2017||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Rene Sanchez-Gomez|
|Nov 13 2017||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Jasmin Isabel Morales|
|Nov 13 2017||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Mark William Ring|
|Nov 20 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2017.|
|Nov 21 2017||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 08 2017||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondents GRANTED.|
|Dec 08 2017||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Jan 22 2018||Brief of petitioner United States filed.|
|Jan 22 2018||Joint appendix filed.|
|Jan 24 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, March 26, 2018|
|Feb 07 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 21 2018||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Feb 21 2018||Brief of respondents Moises Patricio-Guzman, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amici curiae of Former Judges, Former Prosecutors, Former Government Officials, Law Professors, and Social Scientists filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 14 2018||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 23 2018||Motion for appointment of counsel filed by respondent Rene Sanchez-Gomez.|
|Mar 26 2018||Argued. For petitioner: Allon Kedem, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Reuben C. Cahn, San Diego, Cal.|
|Apr 11 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/27/2018.|
|Apr 30 2018||Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent GRANTED, and Ellis M. Johnston, III, Esquire, of San Diego, California, is appointed to serve as counsel for respondent Rene Sanchez-Gomez in this case.|
|May 14 2018||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jun 15 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.