Skip to content

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.

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
10/15/2013Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 18, 2013)
11/14/2013Brief of respondent Steve Franks in opposition filed.
11/26/2013Reply of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed.
12/04/2013DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 10, 2014.
01/13/2014DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 17, 2014.
01/17/2014Petition GRANTED.
02/04/2014Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
02/11/2014SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, April 28, 2014
02/19/2014Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Steve Franks.
02/20/2014Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Susan Burrows.
02/20/2014Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Edward R. Lane.
03/03/2014Brief of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed.
03/03/2014Brief of respondent Susan Burrow in support of reversal in part and affirmance in part filed.
03/05/2014Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom filed.
03/07/2014Brief amicus curiae of National Whistleblower Center filed. (Distributed)
03/10/2014Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
03/10/2014Record received from U.S.D.C. Northern District of Alabama is electronic. (Not on PACER).
03/10/2014CIRCULATED.
03/10/2014Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)
03/10/2014Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
03/10/2014Brief amicus curiae of Government Accountability Project filed. (Distributed)
03/10/2014Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting affirmance in part and reversal in part filed.
03/10/2014Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Police Organizations filed. (Distributed)
03/10/2014Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
03/10/2014Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Coalition filed. (Distributed)
03/10/2014Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)
04/02/2014Brief of respondent Steve Franks filed. (Distributed)
04/08/2014Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time filed.
04/09/2014Brief amici curiae of The International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
04/11/2014Reply of petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. (Distributed)
04/17/2014Reply of respondent Susan Burrow filed. (Distributed)
04/18/2014Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for allocation of argument time GRANTED.
04/22/2014Letter from counsel for petitioner Edward R. Lane filed. (Distributed)
04/28/2014Argued. 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.
06/19/2014Adjudged 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.
07/21/2014JUDGMENT ISSUED