|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-776||5th Cir.||Dec 9, 2019||Mar 23, 2020||7-2||Breyer||OT 2019|
Holding: Because the phrase “questions of law” in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Limited Review Provision, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ “factual” due diligence claims for equitable tolling purposes.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on March 23, 2020. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined as to all but Part II–A–1.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 10 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 18, 2019)|
|Dec 10 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 10 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 18, 2019 to February 19, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 10 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 19, 2019.|
|Feb 12 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 19, 2019 to March 21, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 13 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 21, 2019.|
|Mar 21 2019||Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General in opposition filed.|
|May 23 2019||Reply of petitioner Pedro Pablo Guerrero-Lasprilla filed.|
|May 28 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.|
|Jun 17 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 24 2019||Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 18-1015 is granted limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Jun 24 2019||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. 18-776. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 18-776. 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.”|
|Jun 24 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. VIDED. (September 4, 2019).|
|Jul 11 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. VIDED.|
|Jul 16 2019||Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 29, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 21, 2019. VIDED.|
|Aug 29 2019||Joint appendix filed. VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Aug 29 2019||Brief of petitioner Pedro Pablo Guerrero-Lasprilla filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 05 2019||Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Habeas Corpus Law filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 05 2019||Brief amici curiae of American Immigration Council, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Sep 05 2019||Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Liberties Union filed.|
|Sep 13 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 9, 2019. VIDED.|
|Oct 21 2019||Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General filed. VIDED|
|Oct 23 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Oct 25 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Nov 20 2019||Reply of petitioners filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 09 2019||Argued. For petitioners: Paul W. Hughes, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Mar 23 2020||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined as to all but Part II-A-1. VIDED.|
|Apr 24 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
We are honored to be chosen as the winner of an American Journalism Online Award for Best Non-profit News Source. Thanks to everyone for reading & supporting SCOTUSblog, including on our opinion-day live blogs, which the awarding judge called a "digital townsquare." #AJOawards
The winner of the award for Best Non-Profit News Source is @scotusblog. Judge @juliachanb called the site “a crucial tool in a political journalist’s toolbox” and praised their recent site revamp and dedication to transparency. https://www.scotusblog.com 2/
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...