|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-1155||9th Cir.||Feb 23, 2021||TBD||TBD||TBD||OT 2020|
Issues: (1) Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume that an asylum applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates an application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination; and (2) whether the court of appeals violated the remand rule as set forth in INS v. Ventura when it determined in the first instance that the respondent, Ming Dai, was eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 10 2020||Application (19A781) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 20, 2020 to February 19, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Jan 10 2020||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 10 2020||Application (19A781) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 19, 2020.|
|Feb 07 2020||Application (19A781) to extend further the time from February 19, 2020 to March 20, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Feb 07 2020||Application (19A781) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 20, 2020.|
|Mar 20 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 20, 2020)|
|Apr 13 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 20, 2020 to June 19, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 16 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 19, 2020.|
|Apr 20 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.|
|Jun 19 2020||Brief of respondent Ming Dai in opposition filed.|
|Jul 08 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.|
|Jul 17 2020||Reply of petitioner William P. Barr, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 02 2020||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 19-1156 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Oct 02 2020||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 02 2020||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-1155. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 19-1155. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Nov 16 2020||Joint appendix filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 16 2020||Brief of petitioner William P. Barr, Attorney General filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 01 2020||Motion for an extension of time to file respondents' briefs on the merits filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 03 2020||Motion to extend the time to file respondents' briefs on the merits granted and the time is extended to and including January 4, 2021. VIDED.|
|Dec 31 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, February 23, 2021. VIDED.|
|Jan 04 2021||Brief of respondent Cesar Alcaraz-Enriquez filed (19-1156).|
|Jan 04 2021||Brief of respondent Ming Dai filed (19-1155).|
|Jan 04 2021||Joint motion for divided argument filed by respondents. VIDED.|
|Jan 11 2021||Brief amici curiae of Refugee Advocacy Organizations filed. VIDED.|
|Jan 11 2021||Brief amici curiae of Thirty-Five Former Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals filed. VIDED.|
|Jan 11 2021||Brief amici curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association and National Immigrant Justice Center filed. VIDED.|
|Jan 14 2021||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 19 2021||Motion for divided argument filed by respondents GRANTED. VIDED.|
|Jan 25 2021||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Jan 28 2021||Record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit electronic and located on Pacer. Sealed documents in this record was filed electronically.|
|Feb 03 2021||Reply of petitioner Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Feb 23 2021||Argued. For petitioner: Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 19-1156: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 19-1155: David J. Zimmer, Boston, Mass. VIDED.|
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.
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 ...
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.