Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Hjalmar Rodriguez, Jr. v. Edward H. Burnside, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, No. 20-11218 · judgment June 30, 2022
Before the decision, about 1.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel who has won certiorari before, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and an Eleventh Circuit decision below.
Question presented
In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987), this Court held that “when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Under Turner, “the existence of obvious, easy alternatives” to a challenged prison policy “may be evidence that the regulation is not reasonable.” Id. at 90. In particular, if a plaintiff “can point to an alternative that fully accommodates the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interest[s],” the challenged regulation may fail to satisfy the reasonable relationship standard. Id. at 91. The question presented is: Whether, under Turner, a court may only consider proposed alternatives to a challenged policy that would apply on a prison-wide scale, or whether a court may also consider a more narrow alternative that would need only apply to the individual plaintiff. (I)
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Jeremy Charles Marwell
Vinson & Elkins LLP
For respondent
Stephen John Petrany
Georgia Department of Law
Proceedings
- Apr 24 2023Petition DENIED.
- Apr 05 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/21/2023.
- Apr 04 2023Reply of petitioner Hjalmar Rodriguez, Jr. filed. (Distributed)
- Mar 20 2023Brief of respondents Edward H. Burnside, et al. in opposition filed.
- Feb 17 2023Brief amici curiae of Rutherford Institute, et al. filed.
- Feb 15 2023Brief amicus curiae of Council on American-Islamic Relations filed.
- Feb 15 2023Brief amici curiae of Muslim Advocates, et al. filed.
- Jan 27 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 20, 2023.
- Jan 26 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 17, 2023 to March 20, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jan 18 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
- Jan 18 2023Response Requested. (Due February 17, 2023)
- Jan 12 2023Waiver of right of respondent Edward H. Burnside, et al. to respond filed.
- Dec 22 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 26, 2023)
- Nov 02 2022Application (22A377) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until December 22, 2022.
- Oct 31 2022Application (22A377) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 22, 2022 to January 20, 2023, submitted to Justice Thomas.