No. 19-307
Stuart A. McKeever v. William P. Barr, Attorney General
Tags: disclosure district-court-authority grand-jury grand-jury-secrecy historical-significance historically-significant inherent-authority judicial-discretion public-interest rule-6(e) rule-6e
Key Terms:
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-01-17
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether district courts have inherent authority to release grand jury materials in extraordinary circumstances, such as when the case is historically significant and the public interest strongly favors disclosure.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether district courts have inherent authority to release grand jury materials in extraordinary circumstances
Docket Entries
2020-01-21
Petition DENIED. Statement of Justice Breyer respecting the denial of certiorari. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-307_bqm2.pdf'>Opinion</a>)
2020-01-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.
2019-12-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-10
Reply of petitioner Stuart A. McKeever filed.
2019-11-22
Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General in opposition filed.
2019-10-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 22, 2019.
2019-10-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 6, 2019 to November 22, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-10-07
Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.
2019-10-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 6, 2019.
2019-10-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 7, 2019 to November 6, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-09-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 7, 2019)
Attorneys
Barr, Att'y Gen.
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Constitutional Accountability Center
Stuart A. McKeever
Roman Martinez V — Latham & Watkins, LLP, Petitioner