Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Scott Ogle v. Texas

Paid petition · Court of Appeals of Texas, Third District, No. 03-18-00207-CR, 03-18-00208-CR · judgment August 1, 2018


Certiorari denied · October 7, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

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

Question presented

Texas criminalizes the repeated sending of “electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend another,” if those communications are sent “with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass another.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 42.07(a)(7). Texas appellate courts have held that section 42.07(a)(7) is not unconstitutionally overbroad. And Texas’s highest criminal court—which has upheld the telephonic-communication subsection of section 42.07(a) that includes the same intent and “reasonably likely” benchmarks—has repeatedly refused to review the electronic-communication subsection at issue here. The Supreme Court of Montana has upheld a similar statute, while the high courts of Colorado and New York have held that functionally identical statutes are unconstitutionally overbroad. The question presented is: Does a statute criminalizing electronically communicated speech that is both intended and reasonably likely to annoy, alarm, or embarrass another person prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech in relation to the statute’s legitimate sweep, thus violating the First Amendment?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Mark William Bennett
Bennett & Bennett

For respondent
Kyle Douglas Hawkins
Lehotsky Keller Cohn LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage

Linked docket
18A671

Proceedings

  1. Oct 07 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Aug 07 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
  3. Aug 02 2019
    Reply of petitioner Scott Ogle filed.
  4. Jul 22 2019
    Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.
  5. Jun 17 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including July 22, 2019.
  6. Jun 13 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 21, 2019 to July 22, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. May 22 2019
    Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
  8. May 08 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 21, 2019.
  9. May 06 2019
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 22, 2019 to June 21, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
  10. Apr 22 2019
    Response Requested. (Due May 22, 2019)
  11. Apr 11 2019
    Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)
  12. Apr 10 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.
  13. Apr 05 2019
    Waiver of right of respondent Texas to respond filed.
  14. Mar 08 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 11, 2019)
  15. Jan 29 2019
    Application (18A671) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until March 8, 2019.
  16. Jan 21 2019
    Application (18A671) to extend further the time from February 7, 2019 to March 8, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.
  17. Dec 27 2018
    Application (18A671) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until February 7, 2019.
  18. Dec 20 2018
    Application (18A671) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 8, 2019 to March 8, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.