|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-161||9th Cir.||Mar 2, 2020||Jun 25, 2020||7-2||Alito||OT 2019|
Holding: As applied in this case, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(e)(2)—which limits the habeas review obtainable by a noncitizen detained for expedited removal—does not violate the suspension or due process clauses.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 25, 2020. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg Joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 24 2019||Application (18A1219) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 5, 2019 to July 5, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|May 24 2019||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.|
|May 24 2019||Application (18A1219) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until July 5, 2019.|
|Jun 25 2019||Application (18A1219) to extend further the time from July 5, 2019 to August 4, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jun 26 2019||Application (18A1219) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until August 4, 2019.|
|Aug 02 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 4, 2019)|
|Sep 04 2019||Brief of respondent Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam in opposition filed.|
|Sep 18 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.|
|Sep 19 2019||Reply of petitioners Department of Homeland Security, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 15 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.|
|Oct 18 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 18 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.|
|Oct 30 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Nov 21 2019||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 9, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 15, 2020.|
|Nov 26 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 2, 2020.|
|Dec 09 2019||Joint appendix filed.|
|Dec 09 2019||Brief of petitioners Department of Homeland Security, et al. filed.|
|Dec 09 2019||Proposal of petitioners to lodge copies of transcript hearing held before immigration judge on March 17, 2017, filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Brief amici curiae of The States of Arizona, et al. filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.|
|Jan 09 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Jan 09 2020||The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER with the exception of some SEALED documents that's electronic.|
|Jan 10 2020||The record received from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of California is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of some SEALED documents that's electronic.|
|Jan 15 2020||Brief of respondent Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam filed.|
|Jan 21 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Immigration Scholars filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Professors Of Sri Lankan Politics filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Immigration and Human Rights Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Law of Habeas Corpus filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Asylum Law Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Legal Historians filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of International Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of The States of Illinois, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 14 2020||Reply of petitioners Department of Homeland Security, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 02 2020||Argued. For petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Lee Gelernt, New York, N. Y.|
|Mar 05 2020||Lodging proposal of petitioners approved by the Clerk.|
|Mar 06 2020||Lodging of petitioners consisting of a redacted transcript in related case filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 25 2020||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Breyer, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan, J., joined.|
|Jul 27 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.