Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Michael Bassem Rimlawi v. United States
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 21-10292 · judgment March 8, 2024
Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Fifth Circuit decision below, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and counsel who has filed here before.
Question presented
I. On the important question of how courts are to decide whether constitutional error is harmless, this Court has, since 1967, given inconsistent and contradictory guidance. As one commentator has summarized: [S]cholars tend to agree that there are two very different approaches that judges use in determining harmless error. Under the errorbased approach, the focus of the court is on the likely impact of the error on the jury in the actual trial that took place. Under the guilt-based approach, the court considers a hypothetical trial conducted without the constitutional error, and asks whether the defendant would have nonetheless been convicted. The Supreme Court has used both approaches while rarely discussing the distinctions between them.1 The court of appeals suggested that there may have been a violation of petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation, but ultimately declined to decide that question, holding instead that any error was harmless. In so doing, the court of appeals clearly used the guilt-based approach to harmless error, rather than the error-based approach, and found that the error was harmless based solely upon the other evidence of petitioner’s guilt. In light of the foregoing, the first question presented is: Did the court of appeals err in applying the guilt-based approach, rather than the error1. Jason M. Solomon, Causing Constitutional Harm: How Tort Law Can Help Determine Harmless Error in Criminal Trials, 99 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1053, 1062 (2005) (footnotes omitted).
Counsel of record
For petitioner
David Gerger
Gerger Hennessy Martin & Peterson
For respondent
Sarah M. Harris
Acting Solicitor General
Argument & decision
Decided February 24, 2025.
Proceedings
- Feb 24 2025Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)
- Feb 14 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
- Jan 21 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2025.
- Jan 13 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025.
- Dec 16 2024Reply of petitioner Michael Bassem Rimlawi filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 11 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
- Nov 20 2024Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. VIDED.
- Oct 24 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 20, 2024.
- Oct 22 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 30, 2024 to November 20, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Sep 05 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 30, 2024.
- Sep 04 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 30, 2024 to October 30, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Aug 26 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 30, 2024.
- Aug 22 2024Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 30, 2024 to September 30, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 31 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
- Jul 31 2024Response Requested. (Due August 30, 2024)
- Jul 12 2024Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- Jul 03 2024Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 8, 2024)
- Jun 04 2024Application (23A1069) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until July 8, 2024.
- May 24 2024Application (23A1069) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 6, 2024 to August 5, 2024, submitted to Justice Alito.