|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-118||5th Cir.||Feb 21, 2017||Jun 26, 2017||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) A Bivens remedy is not available when there are "special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress," and the court recently clarified in Ziglar v. Abbasi what constitutes a special factor counselling hesitation; the court of appeals should consider how the reasoning and analysis in Ziglar bear on the question whether the parents of a victim shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent may recover damages for his death; (2) It would be imprudent for the Supreme Court to decide Jesus Hernandez’s Fourth Amendment claim when, in light of the intervening guidance provided in Abbasi, doing so may be unnecessary to resolve this particular case; and (3) with respect to Hernandez’s Fifth Amendment claim, because it is undisputed that the victim's nationality and the extent of his ties to the United States were unknown to the agent at the time of the shooting, the en banc court of appeals erred in granting qualified immunity based on those facts.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on June 26, 2017. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 23 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 26, 2015)|
|Aug 25 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 25, 2015.|
|Aug 26 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Government of the United Mexican States filed.|
|Aug 26 2015||Brief amici curiae of Amnesty International USA, et al. filed.|
|Aug 26 2015||Brief amici curiae of Paso del Norte Civil Rights Project, et al. filed.|
|Aug 26 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Dean Erwin Chemerinsky filed.|
|Sep 25 2015||Brief of respondent Jesus Mesa, Jr. in opposition filed.|
|Oct 14 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 30, 2015.|
|Oct 15 2015||Reply of petitioners Jesus C. Hernandez, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 02 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 6, 2015.|
|Nov 09 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.|
|Nov 16 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.|
|Nov 30 2015||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Jan 17 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 29 2016||Brief of Federal Respondents in opposition filed.|
|Mar 16 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 1, 2016.|
|Mar 18 2016||Supplemental brief of petitioners Jesus C. Hernandez, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 06 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 9, 2016.|
|Jun 13 2016||Rescheduled.|
|Sep 21 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 7, 2016.|
|Oct 11 2016||Petition GRANTED. In addition to the questions presented by the petition the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether the claim in this case may be asserted under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971).|
|Nov 09 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the federal respondents.|
|Nov 14 2016||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Jesus C. Hernandez, et al.|
|Nov 15 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for petitioners.|
|Nov 22 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including December 2, 2016.|
|Nov 22 2016||The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including January 9, 2017.|
|Nov 28 2016||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Dec 01 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for respondent Jesus Mesa, Jr.|
|Dec 02 2016||Brief of petitioners Jesus C. Hernandez, et al. filed.|
|Dec 08 2016||Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Government of the United Mexican States filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Professor Gregory C. Sisk in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of Professors James E. Pfander, Carlos M. Vazquez, and Anya Bernstein filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of The American Immigration Council, et al. filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of Ten Law Professors filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of Former Officials of U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of Border Scholars filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Restore the Fourth, Inc. filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of Legal Historians filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of Border Action Network, et al. filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of Amnesty International USA, et al. filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of Former Police Chiefs filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of Mexican Jurists, Practitioners, and Scholars filed.|
|Dec 09 2016||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.|
|Dec 22 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, February 21, 2017.|
|Dec 30 2016||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Jan 09 2017||Brief of Federal Respondents filed.|
|Jan 09 2017||Brief of respondent Jesus Mesa, Jr. filed.|
|Jan 13 2017||Motion for divided argument filed by Federal Respondents.|
|Jan 17 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 17 2017||Brief amicus curiae of APA Watch filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 17 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2017||Motion for divided argument filed by Federal Respondents GRANTED.|
|Feb 01 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER.|
|Feb 08 2017||Reply of petitioners Jesus C. Hernandez, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 21 2017||Argued. For petitioners: Robert C. Hilliard, Corpus Christi, Tex. For respondent Jesus Mesa, Jr.: Randolph J. Ortega, El Paso, Tex. For federal respondents: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 26 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2017.|
|Jun 26 2017||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Justice Thomas, dissenting. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Opinion per curiam.|
|Jul 28 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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...
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.