|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|
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...
Here's a two-minute explainer from @katieleebarlow, SCOTUSblog's TikTokker-in-residence, on the pair of vaccine decisions the court just handed down.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court BLOCKS the federal government's COVID-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces. The court ALLOWS a vaccine mandate for workers at federally funded health care facilities to take effect nationwide.
SCOTUS releases just one opinion today: an 8-1 decision on an arcane question of pension payments for "dual-status military technicians." The court rules in favor of the government's statutory interpretation and against the technicians. Barrett has the opinion; Gorsuch dissents.