Kaley v. United States
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12-464 | 11th Cir. | Oct 16, 2013 | Feb 25, 2014 | 6-3 | Kagan | OT 2013 |
Holding: When challenging the legality of a pre-trial asset seizure under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(1), a criminal defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury"s determination of probable cause to believe that he committed the crimes charged.
Judgment: Affirmed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on February 25, 2014. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor joined.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: No right to challenge probable cause finding underlying asset freeze even to pay your lawyers (Amy Howe, February 25, 2014)
- Argument preview: Court to consider scope of challenges to asset freezes (Amy Howe, October 16, 2013)
- Argument analysis: Asset forfeiture case is close call (Amy Howe, October 16, 2013)
- Court grants three cases (FINAL UPDATE) (Lyle Denniston, March 18, 2013)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 10/11/2012 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 14, 2012) |
| 11/06/2012 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 14, 2012. |
| 11/14/2012 | Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. |
| 12/05/2012 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 14, 2013. |
| 01/07/2013 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 13, 2013. |
| 02/13/2013 | Brief of respondent United States filed. |
| 02/27/2013 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013. |
| 03/18/2013 | Petition GRANTED. |
| 04/03/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 21, 2013. |
| 06/13/2013 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is further extended to and including July 1, 2013. |
| 06/13/2013 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners. |
| 07/01/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. |
| 07/01/2013 | Brief of petitioners Kerri L. Kaley, et vir filed. |
| 07/01/2013 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.) |
| 07/03/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed. |
| 07/05/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. |
| 07/08/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. |
| 07/08/2013 | Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners Foundation, et al. filed. |
| 07/08/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed. |
| 07/08/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. |
| 07/08/2013 | Brief amicus curiae of New York Council of Defense Lawyers filed. |
| 07/10/2013 | The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 30, 2013. |
| 07/22/2013 | CIRCULATED. |
| 07/23/2013 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 16, 2013. |
| 08/16/2013 | Record Received from U.S.C.A. for 11th Circuit (1 envelope) |
| 08/22/2013 | Record received from the U.S.D.C. of Florida (1 Box) |
| 08/30/2013 | Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/30/2013 | Reply of petitioner Kerri L. Kaley, et vir filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/16/2013 | Argued. For petitioner: Howard Srebnick, Miami, Fla. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. |
| 02/25/2014 | Judgment is affirmed and case remanded. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, and Alito, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. |
| 03/31/2014 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
| 03/31/2014 | Record Received from U.S.C.A. for 11th Circuit has been returned. |
| 03/31/2014 | Record received from United States District Court Southern District of Florida has been returned. |
Issue: Whether, when a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order freezes assets needed by a criminal defendant to retain counsel of choice, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a pre-trial, adversarial hearing at which the defendant may challenge the evidentiary support and legal theory of the underlying charges.