Camreta v. Greene

Consolidated with:

• Alford v. Greene

Holding: Although the Court may generally review a lower court's constitutional ruling at the behest of governmental officials who won a final judgment on constitutional grounds, here the case is moot because the respondent (the plaintiff below) no longer has a stake in preserving the court's holding because she no longer needs protection from the practice at issue.

Plain English Holding: A government official can ask the Supreme Court to review a lower court's ruling that he violated the Constitution, even if the lower court ultimately concluded that he could not be sued for that conduct.

Judgment: vacated in part and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on May 26, 2011. Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor concurred in the judgment, in an opinion that was joined by Justice Breyer. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by Justice Thomas.

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

• Brief for Petitioner Bob Camreta
• Brief for Respondents Sarah Greene, Personally and as Next Friend of S.G. a Minor, and K.G. a Minor
• Reply Brief for Petitioner

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for the National Association of Social Workers and the Oregon Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the District Attorneys of San Diego County, California, and Sacramento County, California in Support of Petitioners
• Brief for the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Center on the Administration of Criminal Law in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the United States of America in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the National School Boards Association, the California School Boards Association, and the Oregon School Boards Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the States of Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Los Angeles County District Attorney on Behalf of Los Angeles County, the California District Attorneys Association, the National District Attorneys Association, and the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council in Support of Petitioner James Alford (in 09-1478 only)
• Brief for the Children’s Advocacy Institute in Support of Neither Party
• Brief for the Cook County Public Guardian in Support of Neither Party and Suggesting Reversal
• Brief for Niveen Ismail in Support of Affirmance and Opinion
• Brief for the American Family Rights Association, Oregon Family Rights, the Family Advocacy Movement, the Family Legal Project of Nebraska, Inc., the Home School Legal Defense Association, the Georgia Office of Family Representation, the U.D.C. David A. Clarke School of Law Legal Clinic, and the Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Family Research Council and the American Coalition for Fathers and Children in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Legal Services for Children in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Center for Law and Education, Learning Rights Law Center, Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, Pacer Center, and Parents United for Responsible Education in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Loyola CIVITAS Childlaw Center, National Center for Youth Law, Clinical Social Work Association, Southern Poverty Law Center, Lawyers for Children, Children and Family Justice Center, Children’s Advocacy Clinic, Professor Michael S. Wald, Professor Donald N. Duquette in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Juvenile Law Center in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Liberty Counsel in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Family Defense Center in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the New York University School of Law Family Defense Clinic, Columbia Law School Child Advocacy Clinic, the Bronx Defenders, the Brooklyn Family Defense Project, and the Center for Family Representation, Inc. in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Legal Aid Society, Juvenile Rights Practice in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Children’s Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Pacific Justice Institute and CPS Watch Legal Team in Support of Respondent
• Brief of the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, Inc., in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Society of Catholic Social Scientists in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the Center for Individual Rights in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Civil Rights and Liberties Committee of the New York County Lawyers’ Association, and the Center for Constitutional Rights in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Battered Women’s Resource Center in Support of Respondent

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of states (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of the Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys' Advisory Council (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of the California State Association of Counties et al. (unavailable)