|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.|
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.