Ayestas v. Davis

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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

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

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance – Rory Little

Argument analysis: Justices weigh text and history of 21st Amendment in challenge to state residency requirement for liquor licenses – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices grapple with notice-and-comment rulemaking for Medicare and beyond – Abbe R. Gluck and Anne Joseph O’Connell
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 additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions relisted for this conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
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.
- 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.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
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.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- 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.
- 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 Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 43

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

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

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

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.

Cases argued	43
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Ayestas v. Davis

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Interesting 5-4 coalition holds that the ACCA reaches robberies that require force sufficient to overcome resistance – Rory Little

Argument analysis: Justices weigh text and history of 21st Amendment in challenge to state residency requirement for liquor licenses – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices grapple with notice-and-comment rulemaking for Medicare and beyond – Abbe R. Gluck and Anne Joseph O’Connell

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 18, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 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