Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Javier Sanchez, Gregory Casorso, and Michael Marr v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 17-10519, 17-10528, 18-10113 · judgment January 25, 2019
Before the decision, about 2.2× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a Ninth Circuit decision below, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition).
Question presented
The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, creates civil and criminal liability for certain anticompetitive conduct. Specifically, it prohibits any contract or combination “in restraint of trade or commerce.” Consistent with the common law, this Court has long interpreted this language to require proof of an “unreasonable” anticompetitive effect. Most antitrust cases are therefore governed by the “rule of reason” and require an explicit finding of unreasonableness. At the same time, this Court has held that certain business arrangements are unlawful per se. In those cases, proof of one of those specified arrangements operates as a conclusive, or irrebuttable, presumption that the arrangement is unreasonable. The question presented is whether the operation of the per se rule in criminal antitrust cases violates the constitutional prohibition—grounded in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments—against instructing juries that certain facts presumptively establish an element of a crime.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Jeffrey L. Fisher
Stanford Supreme Court Litigation Clinic
For respondent
Noel John Francisco
Jones Day
Proceedings
- Jan 13 2020Petition DENIED.
- Dec 11 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
- Dec 05 2019Reply of petitioners Javier Sanchez, et al. filed.
- Nov 25 2019Brief of respondent United States of America in opposition filed.
- Oct 24 2019Brief amicus curiae of Due Process Institute filed.
- Oct 24 2019Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.
- Oct 17 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 25, 2019.
- Oct 16 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 24, 2019 to November 25, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 24 2019Response Requested. (Due October 24, 2019)
- Sep 18 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.
- Sep 17 2019Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Javier Sanchez, et al.
- Sep 12 2019Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
- Aug 30 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 4, 2019)
- Jul 17 2019Application (18A1342) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 30, 2019.
- Jul 15 2019Application (18A1342) to extend further the time from August 1, 2019 to August 30, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.
- Jun 19 2019Application (18A1342) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 1, 2019.
- Jun 17 2019Application (18A1342) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 2, 2019 to August 1, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.