Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Robert ANDERSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES., 2015 — 135 S. Ct. 2925 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Robert ANDERSON, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.
135 S. Ct. 2925192 L. Ed. 2d 964·Supreme Court of the United States·2015
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Robert ANDERSON, petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES.
No. 14-5229.
Supreme Court of the United States
June 30, 2015.
Opinion
[MAJORITY]
On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First 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 First 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.