|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-725||11th Cir.||Nov 4, 2019||Apr 23, 2020||5-4||Kavanaugh||OT 2019|
Holding: In determining eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime, an offense listed in 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(2) committed during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on April 23, 2020. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 04 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 7, 2019)|
|Dec 04 2018||Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.|
|Jan 03 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 7, 2019 to February 6, 2019, filed.|
|Jan 07 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 6, 2019.|
|Jan 31 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file a response from February 6, 2019 to March 8, 2019 filed.|
|Jan 31 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 8, 2019.|
|Mar 08 2019||Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General in opposition filed.|
|Mar 15 2019||Reply of petitioner Andre Martello Barton filed.|
|Mar 20 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.|
|Apr 15 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/18/2019.|
|Apr 22 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 22 2019||As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.|
|May 09 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Andre Martello Barton.|
|May 10 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|May 10 2019||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 26, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 15, 2019.|
|May 20 2019||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Jun 17 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Andre Martello Barton.|
|Jun 26 2019||Brief of petitioner Andre Martello Barton filed.|
|Jul 02 2019||Brief amici curiae of Immigration Law Professors filed.|
|Jul 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center and American Immigration Lawyers Association filed.|
|Jul 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of Momodoulamin Jobe and The Immigrant Defense Project filed.|
|Jul 03 2019||Brief amici curiae of Former United States Immigration Judges filed.|
|Jul 03 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition filed. (July 24, 2019)|
|Jul 08 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 4, 2019.|
|Jul 10 2019||Amicus brief of Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition not accepted for filing. (Corrected version submitted)|
|Aug 15 2019||Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General filed.|
|Sep 03 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 16 2019||Reply of petitioner Andre Martello Barton filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 16 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Sep 16 2019||The record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer, 11th Circuit record is full and complete.|
|Oct 22 2019||Record from the U.S.C.A. updated. The record has been sent electronically and filed.|
|Nov 04 2019||Argued. For petitioner: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Apr 23 2020||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|May 26 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Today at SCOTUS: Two oral arguments starting at 10 a.m. EST. One is on federal anti-discrimination laws. The other is on Medicare payments for drugs dispensed by hospitals -- with big questions about the doctrine of Chevron deference lurking in the background.
Bill Cosby’s prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his conviction today. Quick explainer.
In our latest episode of SCOTUStalk, @shefalil of @19thnews joined us to preview Wednesday's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. Shefali explains the current state of abortion access and the case's implications in Mississippi and across America.
Roe, Dobbs, and the current state of abortion access - SCOTUSblog
In advance of Wednesday's oral argument in the momentous abortion case, Shefali Luthra, a gender and health care r...
Update: Without calling for a response or referring the case to the full court, Justice Breyer just rejected last week's challenge from Massachusetts hospital workers who object to the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate.
(Breyer handles emergency requests from Massachusetts.)
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket challenge to a COVID vaccine mandate. This one is from employees at Mass General Brigham who say the Boston-based hospital violated federal law by not granting them exemptions from the hospital's vaccine policy. Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21A175.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral argument in a case about Medicare payments to hospitals that serve low-income patients. Lots of money at stake, plus potential implications for the Chevron doctrine. @JACoganJr explains the case:
Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula - SCOTUSblog
When it comes to highlighting the complexity of the Medicare Act and its hospital payment rules, Becerra v. Empire...
Two days from now, SCOTUS will hear the biggest abortion case in a generation. In a battle over a Mississippi law, abortion opponents are asking the court to end the constitutional right to abortion. Here's our preview of the case, via @AHoweBlogger.
Roe v. Wade hangs in balance as reshaped court prepares to hear biggest abortion case in decades - SCOTUSblog
When he ran for president in 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would...