|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|10-9995||10th Cir.||Feb 27, 2012||Apr 24, 2012||9-0||Ginsburg||OT 2011|
Holding: Courts of appeals, like district courts, have the authority – but not the obligation – to raise a forfeited timeliness defense on their own initiative in exceptional cases. Because the state in this case had deliberately waived the statute of limitations defense, the court of appeals abused its discretion when it dismissed Wood’s habeas petition as untimely.
Plain English Summary: A state prisoner who is challenging his conviction in federal court on the ground that it was unconstitutional must file his challenge within one year after his state court conviction becomes final. If the prisoner files his challenge late, then the state may win a dismissal of the lawsuit simply on the grounds that the lawsuit is untimely. In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether an appellate court could dismiss the prisoner’s case because he filed his challenge too late even when the state did not argue that the lawsuit was too late. The Court held that, in exceptional cases, the lower court can dismiss the case, but it is not required to do so. Here, when the state specifically recognized that the challenge was filed late but declined to argue that the lateness warranted dismissal, the lower court should not have dismissed the lawsuit.
Judgment: Reversed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on April 24, 2012. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Scalia joined.
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.
Cecilia (Cissy) Suyat Marshall, the widow of Thurgood Marshall, died this morning at 94. Here is the court's announcement.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court REJECTS Trump's bid to prevent the House Ways & Means Committee from obtaining his tax returns. No noted dissents.
The brief order may end years of litigation over the committee's efforts to review the tax records of Trump and his businesses.
JUST IN: Whisky, dog toys... and trademark law.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear a dispute between Jack Daniel's and a company that makes squeaking "Bad Spaniels" dog toys. The case will have implications for the tension between parody & intellectual property. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zr_e1p3.pdf
In a quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS adds no new cases to its docket. The court will not hear Brooks v. Abbott, a challenge to an alleged racial gerrymander of a state senate district in Texas. Here's the full order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zor_7lhn.pdf