Lane v. Franks
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13-483 | 11th Cir. | Apr 28, 2014 | Jun 19, 2014 | 9-0 | Sotomayor | OT 2013 |
Holding: Testimony in a criminal prosecution by a government employee about fraud in the program where he works is protected by the First Amendment; however, the supervisor who fired him in retaliation for that testimony has qualified immunity from suit because it was not "beyond debate" that the employee"s testimony was protected.
Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded., 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 19, 2014.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Commentary: The fundamental constitutional principle not discussed in Lane v. Franks (Marty Lederman, June 20, 2014)
- Opinion analysis: First Amendment clearly protects public employee's subpoenaed testimony – but not sufficiently clearly to overcome qualified immunity (Ruthann Robson, June 19, 2014)
- Argument analysis: How wrong was the Eleventh Circuit about the First Amendment protections for a public employee's subpoenaed testimony? (Ruthann Robson, April 29, 2014)
- Argument preview: First Amendment protections for public employee's subpoenaed testimony (Ruthann Robson, April 24, 2014)
- SCOTUS for law students (sponsored by Bloomberg Law): Qualified immunity (Stephen Wermiel, February 17, 2014)
- Court to rule on cellphone privacy (Lyle Denniston, January 17, 2014)
- Petition of the day (Mary Pat Dwyer, December 25, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 10/15/2013 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 18, 2013) |
| 11/14/2013 | Brief of respondent Steve Franks in opposition filed. |
| 11/26/2013 | Reply of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. |
| 12/04/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014. |
| 01/13/2014 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 17, 2014. |
| 01/17/2014 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 02/04/2014 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner. |
| 02/11/2014 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 28, 2014 |
| 02/19/2014 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Steve Franks. |
| 02/20/2014 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Susan Burrows. |
| 02/20/2014 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Edward R. Lane. |
| 03/03/2014 | Brief of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. |
| 03/03/2014 | Brief of respondent Susan Burrow in support of reversal in part and affirmance in part filed. |
| 03/05/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom filed. |
| 03/07/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of National Whistleblower Center filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/10/2014 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. |
| 03/10/2014 | Record received from U.S.D.C. Northern District of Alabama is electronic. (Not on PACER). |
| 03/10/2014 | CIRCULATED. |
| 03/10/2014 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/10/2014 | Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/10/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of Government Accountability Project filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/10/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting affirmance in part and reversal in part filed. |
| 03/10/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Police Organizations filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/10/2014 | Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/10/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Coalition filed. (Distributed) |
| 03/10/2014 | Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed) |
| 04/02/2014 | Brief of respondent Steve Franks filed. (Distributed) |
| 04/08/2014 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time filed. |
| 04/09/2014 | Brief amici curiae of The International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 04/11/2014 | Reply of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. (Distributed) |
| 04/17/2014 | Reply of respondent Susan Burrow filed. (Distributed) |
| 04/18/2014 | Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time GRANTED. |
| 04/22/2014 | Letter from counsel for petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. (Distributed) |
| 04/28/2014 | Argued. For petitioner: Tejinder Singh, Washington, D. C.; and Ian H. Gershengorn, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent Burrow: Luther J. Strange, III, Attorney General, Montgomery, Ala. For respondent Franks: Mark T. Waggoner, Birmingham, Ala. |
| 06/19/2014 | Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined. |
| 07/21/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED |