|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-10154||1st Cir.||Feb 29, 2016||Jun 27, 2016||6-2||Kagan||OT 2015|
Holding: A reckless domestic assault qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that prohibits firearms possession by convicted felons under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 27, 2016. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Parts I and II.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 4 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 9, 2015)|
|Jul 1 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 10, 2015.|
|Aug 3 2015||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including September 9, 2015.|
|Sep 9 2015||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Sep 14 2015||Reply of petitioners Stephen L. Voisine and William E. Armstrong, III filed.|
|Sep 24 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 9, 2015.|
|Oct 13 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 16, 2015.|
|Oct 26 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 30, 2015.|
|Oct 30 2015||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Nov 18 2015||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioners Stephen L. Voisine and William E. Armstrong, III.|
|Dec 2 2015||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.|
|Dec 11 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including December 17, 2015.|
|Dec 17 2015||Brief of petitioners Stephen L. Voisine and William E. Armstrong, III filed.|
|Dec 17 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Dec 21 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party received from counsel for petitioners Voisine and Armstrong.|
|Dec 23 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, February 29, 2016|
|Dec 23 2015||Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Jan 4 2016||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit.|
|Jan 11 2016||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioners GRANTED, and Virginia G. Villa, Esq., of St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioners in this case.|
|Jan 12 2016||Record received from the U.S D.C District of Main The record is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of SEALED records contained in 1 envelope.|
|Jan 15 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 19 2016||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 25 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Indigenous Women's Resource Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 25 2016||Brief amici curiae of Major Cities Chiefs and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers filed.|
|Jan 26 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Domestic Violence Hotline, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 26 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Everytown for Gun Safety filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 26 2016||Brief amici curiae of Child Justice, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 26 2016||Brief amici curiae of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 26 2016||Brief amici curiae of Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 18 2016||Reply of petitioners Stephen L. Voisine and William E. Armstrong, III filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 29 2016||Argued. For petitioners: Virginia G. Villa, St. Croix Falls, Wis. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Ilana H. Eisenstein, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 27 2016||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined as to Parts I and II.|
|Jul 26 2016||Records from U.S.D.C. Dist. of Maine has been returned.|
|Jul 29 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.