{"argument_date":"2001-01-09T00:00:00Z","arguments":[{"argument_date":"2001-01-09T00:00:00Z","heading":"What happened at the argument","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_transcript_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","paragraphs":["David Bruck argued the state raises three arguments to evade prior precedent.","The state argued its position aligns with the 1994 Supreme Court decision.","Chief Justice Rehnquist called the case submitted after hearing both advocates."],"reargument":false,"sequence":1,"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 17-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 39-41"}]}],"caption":"Shafer v. South Carolina","case_history":[{"changed_at":"2026-08-29T20:06:33.506398Z","explanation":"An official oral-argument transcript was verified.","status":"argued"}],"case_status":"argued","dek":"The dispute centers on whether South Carolina can restrict a defendant's ability to show mitigating factors during sentencing.","dek_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 17-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-13"}],"dispositions":[],"latest_court_document_date":"2001-01-09T00:00:00Z","maturity":"official_transcript","official_detail_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript/2000","official_disposition_urls":[],"official_docket_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/00-5250.html","primary_docket":"00-5250","revisions":[{"correction_note":"Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.","created_at":"2026-08-31T18:13:51.719624Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":1},{"correction_note":"Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.","created_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z","maturity":"official_transcript","revision_number":2}],"schema_version":"1.1","sections":[{"heading":"What this case is about","paragraphs":["David Bruck argues the state tries to evade prior Supreme Court precedent. The state contends its rules remain valid under existing law."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 17-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-13"}]},{"heading":"How the case got here","paragraphs":["The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 9, 2001."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"}]},{"heading":"What each side wants","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case wants the Court to strike down the state's restrictive sentencing rules.","The state wants the Court to uphold its current legal framework for capital sentencing."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 17-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-13"}]},{"heading":"What each side says","paragraphs":["the side that brought the case claims the state's arguments are designed to evade prior Supreme Court precedent.","The state asserts its current legal position remains consistent with the 1994 decision."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 17-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-13"}]},{"heading":"What the justices asked","paragraphs":["Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the side that brought the case to begin his argument.","Chief Justice Rehnquist asked the opposing side to begin his argument."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 39-41"}]},{"heading":"Why it matters","paragraphs":["This case defines the scope of a defendant's right to present mitigation evidence. It determines how states structure capital sentencing procedures. It impacts the balance between state authority and individual rights."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 17-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-13"}]},{"heading":"What happens next","paragraphs":["This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity."],"sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 5-13"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 50, lines 39-41","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 50, lines 39-41"}]}],"slug":"2000-00-5250-shafer-v-south-carolina","term":"2000","title":"Can a state limit a defendant's right to present mitigation evidence?","title_sources":[{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 17-15","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 25, lines 17-15"},{"evidence_type":"Transcript","label":"Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 15-13","official_url":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/2000/00-5250.pdf","page_label":"file page 3, lines 15-13"}],"topics":[],"undated_disposition_date_fallback":null,"updated_at":"2026-09-05T03:22:24Z"}