{"id":3618,"date":"2021-05-03T08:20:48","date_gmt":"2021-05-03T15:20:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618"},"modified":"2021-05-04T06:58:33","modified_gmt":"2021-05-04T13:58:33","slug":"scotus-orders-monday-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618","title":{"rendered":"SCOTUS Orders Monday"},"content":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Supreme Court released its regular Monday orders list<\/a> today. Not surprisingly, there were several wake-of-Jones<\/em> orders in cases that had been on hold for that decision. Oklahoma<\/em> v. Johnson<\/em>, No. 19-250, and United States<\/em> v. Briones<\/em>, No. 19-720, were sent back for reconsideration. These were cases where the lower court decided in an under-18 murderer’s favor based on a broad interpretation of Montgomery<\/em> v. Louisiana<\/em>. Cases where the lower court ruled against the defendant based on a narrow interpretation of Montgomery<\/em> were simply denied, including Newton<\/em> v. Indiana<\/em>, No. 17-1511, and Garcia<\/em> v. North Dakota<\/em>, No. 19-399.<\/p>\n

In other action, Justice Thomas dissented<\/a> from denial of certiorari in the case of a former West Point cadet who sued the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the military’s policies were inadequate to protect cadets against rape. Justice Thomas maintains that the Feres<\/em> doctrine, shielding the military from FTCA claims, is much broader than the language of the statute permits. He may well be right as a matter of statutory interpretation, but the prospect of military commanders’ decisions being routinely second-guessed by judges (relatively few of whom know diddily squat about the military) is not a comforting thought. Congress needs to strike a new, and well-thought-out, balance here.<\/p>\n

Tomorrow the Court hears argument in Terry<\/em>\u00a0 v. United States<\/em>, No. 20-5904, a case involving the First Step Act and crack cocaine re-sentencing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. Supreme Court released its regular Monday orders list today. Not surprisingly, there were several wake-of-Jones orders in cases that had been on hold for that decision. Oklahoma v. Johnson, No. 19-250, and United States v. Briones, No. 19-720, were sent back for reconsideration. These were cases where the lower court decided in an under-18 murderer’s favor based on a broad interpretation of Montgomery v. Louisiana. Cases where the lower court ruled against the defendant based on a narrow interpretation of Montgomery were simply denied, including Newton v. Indiana, No. 17-1511, and Garcia v. North Dakota, No. 19-399.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[56],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-u-s-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSCOTUS Orders Monday - Crime & Consequences<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"SCOTUS Orders Monday - Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The U.S. Supreme Court released its regular Monday orders list today. Not surprisingly, there were several wake-of-Jones orders in cases that had been on hold for that decision. Oklahoma v. Johnson, No. 19-250, and United States v. Briones, No. 19-720, were sent back for reconsideration. These were cases where the lower court decided in an under-18 murderer’s favor based on a broad interpretation of Montgomery v. Louisiana. Cases where the lower court ruled against the defendant based on a narrow interpretation of Montgomery were simply denied, including Newton v. Indiana, No. 17-1511, and Garcia v. North Dakota, No. 19-399.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Crime & Consequences\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-05-03T15:20:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-05-04T13:58:33+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"300\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"400\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Kent Scheidegger\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"1 minute\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618\",\"name\":\"SCOTUS Orders Monday - Crime & Consequences\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-05-03T15:20:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-05-04T13:58:33+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"SCOTUS Orders Monday\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/\",\"name\":\"Crime & Consequences\",\"description\":\"Crime and criminal law\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356\",\"name\":\"Kent Scheidegger\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.cjlf.org\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"SCOTUS Orders Monday - Crime & Consequences","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"SCOTUS Orders Monday - Crime & Consequences","og_description":"The U.S. Supreme Court released its regular Monday orders list today. Not surprisingly, there were several wake-of-Jones orders in cases that had been on hold for that decision. Oklahoma v. Johnson, No. 19-250, and United States v. Briones, No. 19-720, were sent back for reconsideration. These were cases where the lower court decided in an under-18 murderer’s favor based on a broad interpretation of Montgomery v. Louisiana. Cases where the lower court ruled against the defendant based on a narrow interpretation of Montgomery were simply denied, including Newton v. Indiana, No. 17-1511, and Garcia v. North Dakota, No. 19-399.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618","og_site_name":"Crime & Consequences","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CriminalJusticeLegalFoundation\/","article_published_time":"2021-05-03T15:20:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-05-04T13:58:33+00:00","og_image":[{"width":300,"height":400,"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/FB_DefaultLJ.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Kent Scheidegger","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Kent Scheidegger","Est. reading time":"1 minute"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618","name":"SCOTUS Orders Monday - Crime & Consequences","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-05-03T15:20:48+00:00","dateModified":"2021-05-04T13:58:33+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?p=3618#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"SCOTUS Orders Monday"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/","name":"Crime & Consequences","description":"Crime and criminal law","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/#\/schema\/person\/1ab62da9ed4ddd3a58d70c77eef37356","name":"Kent Scheidegger","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.cjlf.org"],"url":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3618","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3618"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3618\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3636,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3618\/revisions\/3636"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.crimeandconsequences.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}