|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-212||1st Cir.||Jun 25, 2014||9-0||Roberts||OT 2013|
Holding: The police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital information on a cellphone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 25, 2014. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 15 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 16, 2013)|
|Sep 6 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 16, 2013.|
|Oct 8 2013||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 15, 2013.|
|Nov 15 2013||Brief of respondent Brima Wurie in opposition filed.|
|Nov 15 2013||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Brima Wurie.|
|Nov 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 6, 2013.|
|Nov 20 2013||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 31 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 17, 2014.|
|Jan 17 2014||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Jan 17 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 11 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, April 29, 2014|
|Feb 21 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit, (1 envelope) part of this record is SEALED. All other filings of this record is available electronically through PACER.|
|Mar 3 2014||Joint appendix filed.|
|Mar 3 2014||Brief of petitioner United States filed.|
|Mar 5 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from the respondent.|
|Mar 6 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Mar 7 2014||Brief amici curiae of Criminal Law Professors in support of private parties filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Center for Democracy & Technology, and Electronic Frontier Foundation in support of Riley and Wurie filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of American Library Association, and The Internet Archive in support of Riley and Wurie filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Press Photographers Association, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amici curiae of Professors Charles E. MacLean & Adam Lamparello filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 10 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center in support of Riley and Wurie filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Apr 2 2014||Brief of respondent Brima Wurie filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 9 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders, et al., filed. (Distributed).|
|Apr 9 2014||Brief amici curiae of Downsize DC Foundation, et al., filed. (Distributed).|
|Apr 9 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 9 2014||Brief amici curiae of Southwestern Law Student Anna Aran, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 9 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 22 2014||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 29 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Judith H. Mizner, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Boston, Mass.|
|Jun 25 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. VIDED with No. 13-132.|
|Jul 28 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jul 28 2014||Record returned for U.S.C.A. for First Circuit.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.