Brown v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2924 (2015). · Go Syfert
Brown v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2924 (2015). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell (ca10, 2015-07-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell (3×) also: Cited "see"
10th Cir. · 2015 · confidence medium
But that would be equally true of the arrangement proposed in the Supreme Court’s orders in Zubik, which enjoined the Mandate only “[i]f the applicants ensure that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is in possession of all information necessaiy to verify applicants’ eligibility under 26 CFR § 54.9815 -2713A(a) or 29 CFR § 2590.715 -2713A(a) or 45 CFR § 147.131 (b) (as applicable),” 135 S.Ct. at 2924, 2015 WL 3947586 , at *1, and Wheaton College, which enjoined the Mandate only ”[i]f the applicant informs the Secretary of Health and Human Services in writing that it is a no…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wendell Terrell BROWN
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 13–8407..
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 30, 2015.
135 S. Ct. 2924
Published

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperisand petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States,576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2551, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2015).

Justice ALITOconcurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: Following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Johnson v. United States,576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2551, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2015). In holding this petition and now in vacating and remanding the decision below in this case, the Court has not differentiated between cases in which the petitioner would be entitled to relief if the Court held (as it now has) that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is void for vagueness and cases in which relief would not be warranted for a procedural reason. On remand, the Court of Appeals should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief.