Consolidated into: Holder v. Sawyers
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|10-1542||9th Cir.||Jan 18, 2012||May 21, 2012||9-0||Kagan||OT 2011|
Holding: The position of the Board of Immigration Appeals that an alien seeking cancellation of removal must individually satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) – lawful permanent resident status for at least five years and at least seven years of continuous residence in the United States after a lawful admission – rather than relying on a parent’s years of continuous residence or lawful permanent resident status – is based on a permissible construction of the statute.
Plain English Summary: A statute provides that a foreign national may ask the Attorney General to decide, in his discretion, to cancel removal (deportation) if the foreign national meets certain criteria. Two of the criteria implicate length of U.S. residence and length of immigration status. The Board of Immigration Appeals, which is a part of the Department of Justice, interpreted the statutory criteria to forbid the transfer of a parent’s U.S. residence and immigration status to a child if the child cannot meet the criteria on his or her own. The Supreme Court held that the statutory criteria do not make clear whether such imputation is permissible. Because the statute is ambiguous, the Court explained that it would defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ reading of the statute as long as that reading is reasonable. The Supreme Court held the reading to be reasonable. This means that the interpretation of the Board of Immigration Appeals survives. A parent will not be able to transfer residency and/or status to a child to determine the child’s eligibility for relief from removal.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on May 21, 2012.
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent
Here's today's order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/011822zor_5iel.pdf
The court doesn't add any new cases to its docket, and takes no action on major pending petitions involving affirmative action in higher education & religious objections to nondiscrimination laws meant to protect LGBTQ people.
As she did last week, Sonia Sotomayor will participate in this week's arguments remotely, SCOTUS says. @NinaTotenberg reported this morning that Sotomayor's decision is the result of Neil Gorsuch's refusal to wear a mask on the bench. All other justices have agreed to wear masks.
Today at SCOTUS: The court will release orders on pending petitions at 9:30 a.m., followed by two oral arguments starting at 10 -- one on a First Amendment spat over a Boston flag policy; the other on a family's quest to reclaim an Impressionist painting taken in WWII by Nazis.
JUST IN: The Supreme Court agrees to take up five new cases, including an appeal from a high school football coach who lost his job after he prayed on the field.
#SCOTUS will have more opinions next Thursday at 10 am.
A workplace vaccine-or-test requirement that would have covered 84 million workers -- blocked. A vaccine mandate for over 10 million health care workers -- allowed to take effect.
Full analysis from @AHoweBlogger on this afternoon's rulings:
Fractured court blocks vaccine-or-test requirement for large workplaces but green-lights vaccine mandate for health care workers - SCOTUSblog
With COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations reaching a new record high as a result of the Omicron variant, the Suprem...