|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.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.