|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-6418||11th Cir.||Mar 30, 2016||Apr 18, 2016||7-1||Kennedy||OT 2015|
Holding: The Court’s 2015 ruling in Johnson v. United States, holding that the imposition of an increased sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act's residual clause violates due process, announced a new substantive rule that has retroactive effect in cases on collateral review.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 7-1, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on April 18, 2016. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 2 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 5, 2015)|
|Oct 14 2015||Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.|
|Oct 29 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.|
|Nov 5 2015||Response Requested . (Due December 7, 2015)|
|Dec 3 2015||Memorandum of respondent United States filed.|
|Dec 21 2015||Reply of petitioner Gregory Welch filed.|
|Dec 23 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.|
|Dec 28 2015||Supplemental brief of petitioner Gregory Welch filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 8 2016||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Jan 15 2016||Helgi C. Walker, Esq., of Washington, D. C., is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below. Briefs of other amici curiae in support of affirmance are to be filed within 7 days after the filing of the brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae.|
|Jan 20 2016||The joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits shall be filed on or before February 9, 2016.|
|Jan 20 2016||Respondent's brief on the merits shall be filed on or before February 9, 2016.|
|Jan 20 2016||The brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below shall be filed on or before March 8, 2016.|
|Jan 20 2016||Amicus curiae briefs in support of the judgment below are due within 7 days after the filing of the brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae.|
|Jan 29 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, March 30, 2016|
|Feb 1 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Feb 2 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Feb 8 2016||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Feb 9 2016||Brief of respondent United States filed.|
|Feb 9 2016||Brief of petitioner Gregory Welch filed.|
|Feb 9 2016||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Feb 16 2016||Brief amici curiae of The Federal Public and Community Defenders, and the National Association of Federal Defenders filed.|
|Feb 16 2016||Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Federal Courts and Sentencing filed.|
|Feb 23 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 1 2016||Record received from U.S.D.C. Southern Dist. of Florida is electronic and located on PACER with the exception of the SEALED documents received in 1 envelope.|
|Mar 8 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 15 2016||Motion for divided argument filed by respondent United States.|
|Mar 15 2016||Brief amici curiae of Indiana, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 18 2016||Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Mar 23 2016||Reply of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 23 2016||Reply of petitioner Gregory Welch filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 30 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Amir H. Ali, Washington, D. C. For respondent in support of vacatur and remand: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: Helgi C. Walker, Washington, D. C.|
|Apr 18 2016||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|May 20 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
|Aug 19 2016||Record from U.S.D.C. Southern District of Florida has been returned.|
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...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
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.