Ayestas v. Davis

Ayestas v. Davis

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
16-6795	5th Cir.	Oct 30, 2017 Tr.Aud.	Mar 21, 2018	9-0	Alito	OT 2017

Holding: The district court’s denial of Carlos Ayestas’ request for funding for “reasonably necessary” services of experts, investigators and the like, under 18 U. S. C. §3599(f), to develop his claim that both his trial and state habeas counsel were ineffective was a judicial decision subject to appellate review under the standard jurisdictional provisions; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not apply the correct legal standard in affirming the denial of that request.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Alito on March 21, 2018. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined.

OT2017 #19: "This Classroom Is Not Full" (First Mondays)
Opinion analysis: Justices unanimously reverse 5th Circuit on funding for capital habeas petitions (Steve Vladeck)
A "view" from the courtroom: Just another (snowy) workday here (Mark Walsh)
OT2017 #5: “Oglethorpe’s Second Cousin” (First Mondays)
Argument analysis: Major capital habeas case appears headed toward narrow reversal (Steve Vladeck)
Argument preview: A subtle but significant dispute over funding federal habeas petitions in capital cases (Steve Vladeck)
Two grants, still no Masterpiece Cakeshop (again) (Amy Howe)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Aug 05 2016	Application (16A130) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 8, 2016 to October 24, 2016, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Aug 10 2016	Application (16A130) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until October 24, 2016.
Oct 14 2016	Application (16A130) to extend further the time from October 24, 2016 to November 7, 2016, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Oct 19 2016	Application (16A130) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until November 7, 2016.
Nov 07 2016	Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 9, 2016)
Dec 05 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 9, 2017.
Dec 23 2016	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 8, 2017.
Feb 08 2017	Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division in opposition filed.
Feb 23 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 17, 2017.
Feb 23 2017	Reply of petitioner Carlos Manuel Ayestas, aka Dennis Zelaya Corea filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.
Mar 27 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.
Apr 03 2017	Motion of petitioner to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is GRANTED limited to Question 2 presented by the petition.
Apr 10 2017	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner Carlos Manuel Ayestas, aka Dennis Zelaya Corea.
May 05 2017	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent.
May 05 2017	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or either party from counsel for the petitioner.
May 12 2017	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 9, 2017.
May 12 2017	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 1, 2017.
May 16 2017	Motion to appoint counsel DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.
Jun 05 2017	Motion to appoint counsel filed by petitioner GRANTED. and Lee B. Kovarsky, Esquire, of Baltimore, Maryland, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
Jun 09 2017	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Jun 09 2017	Brief of petitioner Carlos Manuel Ayestas, aka Dennis Zelaya Corea filed.
Jun 16 2017	Brief amici curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,and The American Civil Liberties Union filed.
Jun 16 2017	Brief amicus curiae of The Constitution Project filed.
Jun 16 2017	Brief amicus curiae of The American Bar Association filed.
Jun 16 2017	Brief amicus curiae of The Capital Punishment Center of the University of Texas at Austin School of Law filed.
Aug 01 2017	Brief of respondent Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, Correctional Division filed.
Aug 08 2017	Brief amici curiae of States of Arizona, et al. filed.
Aug 31 2017	Reply of petitioner Carlos Manuel Ayestas filed.
Aug 31 2017	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, October 30, 2017
Sep 07 2017	CIRCULATED
Sep 12 2017	Record requested from the U.S.C.A.5th Circuit.
Sep 28 2017	Record received from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of Texas - Brownsville Division is electronic.
Oct 30 2017	Argued. For petitioner: Lee Kovarsky, Baltimore, Md. (Appointed by this Court.) For respondent: Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General of Texas, Austin, Tex.
Mar 21 2018	Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined.
Apr 23 2018	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
On Wednesday the justices released their opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Dawson v. Steager By taxing the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retiree James Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Dawson as 4 U.S.C. §111 forbids.
- Timbs v. Indiana The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 45

Cases decided 13

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	45
Cases decided	13
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74