No. 21-5322

André J. Twitty v. United States

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-08-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process federal-law federalism first-amendment preemption state-statute statutory-interpretation supremacy-clause void-for-vagueness
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (from Petition)

Does the Assimilative Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 13, impose upon a federal Court to assimilate Under the requirements of an Unconstitutional State Statute, to render it Constitutional to block the recent ruling of the State of Colorado Supreme Court, Book "In the Interest of R.O." (Colo. 1992) Violate the First Amendment and this Court's holding in Morris v. United States?

Does the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, days. I tda.± a. State Statute that it in Conflict Vltdla. fderu! laW (fderu.1 Coo S titutiono-l ft>pht)?

Does the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment Void-for-Vagueness Dicin' /?e fermit So/rn&ane. io ^ C?nVicfed UUider cx/l {-r -n LLfiCori Si'A fee tfonou / <§ 'faJ'ojfe* -m ctrx &to tk- tin tied States Constitution _(LUSZr?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Assimilative Crimes Act confer jurisdiction upon a federal court to assimilate and alter the elements of an unconstitutional state statute to render it constitutional?

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2021-08-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-07-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 9, 2021)

Attorneys

Andre J. Twitty
Andre J. Twitty — Petitioner
United States
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Respondent