|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-10376||6th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2015|
Issue: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit’s ruling – that the lack of Supreme Court case law holding that references to a victim’s pregnancy when the pregnancy is not an issue at trial violates due process means no “clearly established” law exists for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) – conflicts with this Court’s rulings holding that “clearly established” law does not require a case with an identical fact pattern but instead includes legal principles and standards flowing from precedent and general standards designed to apply to a myriad of factual situations; and (2) whether this Court’s standard that a state evidentiary ruling can be so egregious as to deny a defendant fundamental fairness and thus violate the federal due process clause is broad enough to constitute “clearly established” law that applies when the prosecution introduces irrelevant evidence of a victim’s pregnancy; and, if so, whether the evidence regarding the victim’s pregnancy and the prosecutor’s ensuing argument are “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of” this “clearly established” law.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jun 18 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 23, 2015)|
|Jul 20 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 21, 2015.|
|Sep 21 2015||Brief of respondent Randy White, Warden in opposition filed.|
|Sep 28 2015||Reply of petitioner Roger L. Wheeler filed.|
|Oct 7 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 30, 2015.|
|Nov 2 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 6, 2015.|
|Nov 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.|
|Nov 13 2015||Record Requested .|
|Nov 16 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.|
|Nov 17 2015||Record received from the U.S.C.A. for the 6th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER.|
|Nov 30 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.|
|Nov 30 2015||Record received from the U.S.D.C. for the Western District of Kentucky. The record is electronic and available on PACER.|
|Dec 7 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.|
|Dec 14 2015||Petition DENIED.|
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.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
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.