|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-7451||11th Cir.||Nov 5, 2014||Feb 25, 2015||5-4||Ginsburg||OT 2014|
Holding: For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, which imposes criminal liability on anyone who “knowingly . . . destroys . . . any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States,” a “tangible object” is one used to record or preserve information.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on February 25, 2015. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 13 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 20, 2013)|
|Nov 26 2013||Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.|
|Dec 5 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.|
|Jan 6 2014||Response Requested . (Due February 5, 2014)|
|Jan 28 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including March 7, 2014.|
|Feb 5 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Cause of Action filed.|
|Feb 5 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Mar 5 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 14, 2014.|
|Mar 14 2014||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Mar 28 2014||Reply of petitioner John L. Yates filed.|
|Apr 3 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.|
|Apr 21 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 25, 2014.|
|Apr 28 2014||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis Granted. Petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|May 15 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 30, 2014.|
|May 15 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 19, 2014.|
|May 28 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jun 30 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Jun 30 2014||Brief of petitioner John L. Yates filed.|
|Jul 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America & National Association of Manufacturers filed.|
|Jul 7 2014||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Jul 7 2014||Brief amici curiae of Eighteen Criminal Law Professors filed.|
|Jul 7 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.|
|Jul 7 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jul 7 2014||Brief amici curiae of Cause of Action, et al. filed.|
|Jul 7 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center filed.|
|Jul 7 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Honorable Michael Oxley filed.|
|Jul 7 2014||Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Aug 19 2014||Brief of respondent United States filed.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 5, 2014.|
|Sep 8 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Sep 8 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A 11th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Sep 18 2014||Reply of petitioner John L. Yates filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 19 2014||CIRCULATED|
|Nov 5 2014||Argued. For petitioner: John L. Badalamenti, Assistant Federal Defender, Tampa, Fla. For respondent: Roman Martinez, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Nov 5 2014||Letter from the Solicitor General filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 25 2015||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined.|
|Mar 30 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.