|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-1373||Utah||Feb 22, 2016||Jun 20, 2016||5-3||Thomas||OT 2015|
Holding: When there was no flagrant police misconduct and a police officer discovered a valid, pre-existing, and untainted warrant for an individual’s arrest, evidence seized pursuant to that arrest is admissible even when the police officer’s stop of the individual was unconstitutional, because the discovery of the warrant attenuated the connection between the stop and the evidence.
Judgment: Reversed, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 20, 2016. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 31 2015||Application (14A1025) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 16, 2015 to May 18, 2015, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.|
|Apr 6 2015||Application (14A1025) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until May 18, 2015.|
|May 15 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 18, 2015)|
|Jun 11 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 20, 2015.|
|Jun 18 2015||Brief amici curiae of Michigan, and Ten Other States filed.|
|Jun 30 2015||Brief of respondent Edward Joseph Strieff, Jr. in opposition filed.|
|Jul 14 2015||Reply of petitioner Utah filed. (Distributed)|
|Jul 15 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.|
|Oct 1 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 6 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 4, 2015.|
|Nov 6 2015||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 22, 2016.|
|Nov 6 2015||Petitioner will file a reply brief on the merits on or before February 9, 2016.|
|Dec 4 2015||Brief of petitioner Utah filed.|
|Dec 4 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Dec 11 2015||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Dec 11 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.|
|Dec 11 2015||Brief amici curiae of Michigan, and Twenty-Nine Other States filed.|
|Dec 23 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, February 22, 2016.|
|Jan 4 2016||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Utah.|
|Jan 12 2016||Record received from the Supreme Court of Utah, the record is electronic.|
|Jan 15 2016||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 21 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Jan 22 2016||Brief of respondent Edward Joseph Strieff, Jr. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2016||Brief amici curiae of Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), and Twenty-One Technical Experts and Legal Scholars filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2016||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 29 2016||Brief amici curiae of Tracy E. Labrusciano, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 9 2016||Reply of petitioner Utah filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 18 2016||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Feb 22 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Tyler R. Green, Solicitor General, Salt Lake City, Utah; and John F. Bash, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Joan C. Watt, Salt Lake City, Utah.|
|Jun 20 2016||Judgment REVERSED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined as to Parts I, II, and III. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined.|
|Jul 22 2016||MANDATE ISSUED|
|Jul 22 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
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.