|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-5040||Pa.||Feb 29, 2016||Jun 9, 2016||5-3||Kennedy||OT 2015|
Holding: Under the Due Process Clause, there is an impermissible risk of actual bias when a judge earlier had significant, personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision regarding the defendant’s case.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 9, 2016. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 7 2015||Application (14A1161) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 19, 2015 to July 18, 2015, submitted to Justice Alito.|
|May 12 2015||Application (14A1161) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until June 18, 2015.|
|Jun 12 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 31, 2015)|
|Jul 24 2015||Brief of respondent Pennsylvania in opposition filed.|
|Aug 7 2015||Reply of petitioner Terrance Williams filed.|
|Aug 13 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.|
|Oct 1 2015||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.|
|Nov 6 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including November 30, 2015.|
|Nov 6 2015||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 13, 2016.|
|Nov 10 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Nov 13 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Nov 30 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Nov 30 2015||Brief of petitioner Terrance Williams filed.|
|Dec 7 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Dec 7 2015||Brief amici curiae of Former Judges with Prosecutorial Experience filed.|
|Dec 7 2015||Brief amici curiae of The Ethics Bureau at Yale, et al. filed.|
|Dec 7 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The American Bar Association filed.|
|Dec 7 2015||Brief amici curiae of Former Appellate Court Jurists filed.|
|Dec 7 2015||Brief amici curiae of Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, and Justice at Stake filed.|
|Dec 7 2015||Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union, and The ACLU of Pennsylvania filed.|
|Dec 7 2015||Brief amicus curiae of The American Academy of Appellate Lawyers filed.|
|Dec 23 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, February 29, 2016|
|Jan 8 2016||Record received from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Eastern District. (2 Boxes)|
|Jan 13 2016||Brief of respondent Pennsylvania filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 15 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 11 2016||Record received from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (2 Boxes)|
|Feb 12 2016||Reply of petitioner Terrance Williams filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 29 2016||Argued. For petitioner: Stuart B. Lev, Assistant Federal Defender, Philadelphia, Pa. For respondent: Ronald Eisenberg, Deputy District Attorney, Philadelphia, Pa.|
|Jun 9 2016||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jun 9 2016||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 12 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
|Jul 12 2016||MANDATE ISSUED|
|Aug 16 2016||Records from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has been returned. (4 Boxes)|
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.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
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:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.