|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-6855||11th Cir.||Oct 30, 2017||Apr 17, 2018||6-3||Breyer||OT 2017|
Holding: A federal habeas court reviewing an unexplained state-court decision on the merits should “look through” that decision to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning; the state may rebut the presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on April 17, 2018. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 10 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 15, 2016)|
|Dec 19 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 5, 2017.|
|Jan 05 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Adam K. Mortara, in support of respondent filed.|
|Jan 05 2017||Brief of respondent Eric Sellers, Warden filed.|
|Jan 19 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2017.|
|Feb 21 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 24, 2017.|
|Feb 27 2017||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Adam K. Mortara, Esquire, of Chicago, Illinois, is invited to brief and argue, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below.|
|Mar 15 2017||Letter from respondent regarding position in case. (Distributed)|
|Mar 27 2017||In light of the letter filed by respondent on March 15, 2017, the order inviting Adam K. Mortara, Esquire to brief and argue, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below is withdrawn.|
|Apr 04 2017||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 30, 2017.|
|May 19 2017||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including June 5, 2017.|
|Jun 05 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jun 05 2017||Brief of petitioner Marion Wilson filed.|
|Jun 12 2017||Brief amici curiae of Retired State Supreme Court Justices filed.|
|Jun 14 2017||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 21, 2017.|
|Aug 21 2017||Brief of respondent Eric Sellers, Warden filed.|
|Aug 28 2017||Brief amici curiae of Arkansas, et al. filed.|
|Aug 31 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, October 30, 2017|
|Sep 07 2017||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 12 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A.11th Circuit.|
|Sep 20 2017||Reply of petitioner Marion Wilson filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 30 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Mark E. Olive, Tallahassee, Fla. For respondent: Sarah Hawkins Warren, Solicitor General of Georgia, Atlanta, Ga.|
|Nov 15 2017||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Marion Wilson.|
|Nov 20 2017||Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2017.|
|Dec 11 2017||Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. , and Mark E. Olive, Esquire, of Tallahassee, Florida, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.|
|Jan 19 2018||Letter filed by respondent Warden Sellers. (Distributed)|
|Apr 17 2018||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.|
|May 21 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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.