Johnson v. Williams

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-465	9th Cir.	Oct 3, 2012	Feb 20, 2013	9-0	Alito	OT 2012

Holding: For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant"s claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on February 20, 2013. Justice Scalia filled an opinion concurring in the judgment.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion recap: Silence speaks a little louder (Lyle Denniston, February 20, 2013)
Swinging for the fences (Tom Goldstein, October 4, 2012)
Argument recap: Pushing the envelope, needlessly (Lyle Denniston, October 3, 2012)
Argument preview: What does a court's silence mean? (Lyle Denniston, October 2, 2012)
Three new cases granted (UPDATED) (Lyle Denniston, January 13, 2012)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
10/10/2011	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2011)
10/10/2011	Appendix of Javier Cavazos, Acting Warden filed.
11/01/2011	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 14, 2011.
12/09/2011	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 21, 2011.
12/21/2011	Brief of respondent Tara Sheneva Williams in opposition filed. (Distributed)
12/21/2011	Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Tara Sheneva Williams. (Distributed)
12/28/2011	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2012.
01/04/2012	Reply of petitioner Javier Cavazos, Acting Warden filed. (Distributed)
01/13/2012	Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
01/13/2012	Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.
02/10/2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including March 28, 2012.
02/17/2012	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 29, 2012.
03/28/2012	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
03/28/2012	Brief of petitioner Deborah K. Johnson, Acting Warden filed.
04/04/2012	Brief amici curiae of Illinois, et al. filed.
05/29/2012	Brief of respondent Tara Sheneva Williams filed.
06/05/2012	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
06/28/2012	Reply of petitioner Deborah K. Johnson, Acting Warden filed.
07/23/2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, October 3, 2012
07/24/2012	CIRCULATED.
07/27/2012	Record from U.S.D.C. for Central District of California received from Chamber of Judge Reinhardt of the U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit.
08/07/2012	Record received fro U.S.C.A. for 9th Circuit. (1 envelope)
10/03/2012	Argued. For petitioner: Stephanie Brenan, Deputy Attorney General, Los Angeles, Cal. For respondent: Kurt D. Hermansen, San Diego, Cal.
02/20/2013	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
03/13/2013	Petition for Rehearing filed.
03/20/2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 12, 2013.
04/15/2013	Rehearing DENIED.
04/15/2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
06/03/2013	Record returned to U.S. District Court for Central District of California.

Holding: For purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant”s claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.

Judgment:”Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on February 20, 2013. Justice Scalia filled an opinion concurring in the judgment.