Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Erik Lindsey Hughes v. United States

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 15-15246 · judgment February 27, 2017

Decided · June 4, 2018
Pre-decision estimate: 1% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

This Court explained in Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977), that "[w]hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, 'the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds."' In Freeman v. United States, 564 U.S. 522 (2011), the Court issued a fractured 4-1-4 decision concluding that a defendant who enters into a plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) may be eligible for a reduction in his sentence if the Sentencing Commission subsequently issues a retroactive amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines. But the four-Justice plurality and Justice Sotomayor's concurrence shared no common rationale and the courts of appeals have divided over how to apply Freeman's result. The questions presented are:

  1. Whether this Court's decision in Marks means that the concurring opinion in a 4-1-4 decision represents the holding of the Court where neither the plurality's reasoning nor the concurrence's reasoning is a logical subset of the other. 2.Whether, under Marks, the lower courts are bound by the four-Justice plurality opinion in Freeman, or, instead, by Justice Sotomayor's separate concurring opinion with which all eight other Justices disagreed.

  2. Whether, as the four-Justice plurality in Freeman concluded, a defendant who enters into a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is generally eligible for a sentence reduction if there is a later, retroactive amendment to the relevant Sentencing Guidelines range.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
E. Joshua Rosenkranz
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Amicus briefs
5 merits
(5 supporting pet./neither)

Argument & decision

Argued March 27, 2018 — Eric Shumsky · Rachel P. Kovner. Audio and transcript

Decided June 4, 2018. Opinion by Kennedy.

Proceedings

  1. Aug 29 2018
    The record from the U.S.D.C. Northern Dist. of Georgia has been returned.
  2. Jul 06 2018
    JUDGMENT ISSUED.
  3. Jun 04 2018
    Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.
  4. Mar 27 2018
    Argued. For petitioner: Eric Shumsky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Rachel P. Kovner, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
  5. Mar 13 2018
    Reply of petitioner Erik Hughes filed. (Distributed)
  6. Mar 02 2018
    Record received from the U.S.D.C. Northern Dist. of Georgia. (1 Envelope, part of the record is Sealed)
  7. Feb 21 2018
    Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.
  8. Feb 21 2018
    Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)
  9. Feb 20 2018
    Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Law Professors in support of neither party GRANTED.
  10. Feb 07 2018
    CIRCULATED
  11. Jan 29 2018
    Brief amici curiae of Agricultural Building, Forestry, Livestock, Manufacturing, Mining, and Petroleum Business Interests filed.
  12. Jan 29 2018
    Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Federal Defenders filed.
  13. Jan 29 2018
    Brief amicus curiae of Professor Douglas A. Berman filed.
  14. Jan 26 2018
    Brief amicus curiae of Richard M. Re in support of neither party filed.
  15. Jan 26 2018
    Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Law Professors in support of neither party filed.
  16. Jan 25 2018
    Brief amici curiae of Chantell and Michael Sackett, and Duarte Nursery, Inc. filed.
  17. Jan 24 2018
    SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 27, 2018
  18. Jan 22 2018
    Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
  19. Jan 22 2018
    Brief of petitioner Erik Hughes filed.
  20. Jan 11 2018
    Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Erik Hughes.
  21. Dec 08 2017
    Petition GRANTED.
  22. Nov 20 2017
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2017.
  23. Nov 17 2017
    Reply of petitioner Erik Hughes filed.
  24. Nov 01 2017
    Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
  25. Sep 22 2017
    Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 1, 2017.
  26. Aug 24 2017
    Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 2, 2017.
  27. Jul 27 2017
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 31, 2017)
  28. May 22 2017
    Application (16A1134) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until July 27, 2017.
  29. May 19 2017
    Application (16A1134) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 28, 2017 to July 27, 2017, submitted to Justice Thomas.