|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-812||3d Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2016|
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that the petitioners are not entitled to judicial review of their statutory, regulatory and constitutional claims, even by habeas corpus, and are “prohibited from invoking the protections of the suspension clause" to challenge their removal; and (2) whether the 3rd Circuit erred in concluding, contrary to every other circuit to address the issue, that persons who have entered the United States may be “assimilated” to the constitutional status of noncitizens arriving at our borders, and thereby denied constitutional rights.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 22 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 26, 2017)|
|Jan 12 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 27, 2017.|
|Jan 17 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.|
|Jan 26 2017||Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Immigration Law filed.|
|Jan 26 2017||Brief amici curiae of Refugee and Human Rights Organizations and Scholars filed.|
|Jan 26 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The American Bar Association filed.|
|Jan 26 2017||Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Law of Habeas Corpus, et al. filed.|
|Feb 10 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 13, 2017.|
|Mar 13 2017||Brief of respondents Department of Homeland Security, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Mar 27 2017||Reply of petitioners Rosa Elida Castro, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 28 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.|
|Apr 17 2017||Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...