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
Cecilia (Cissy) Suyat Marshall, the widow of Thurgood Marshall, died this morning at 94. Here is the court's announcement.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court REJECTS Trump's bid to prevent the House Ways & Means Committee from obtaining his tax returns. No noted dissents.
The brief order may end years of litigation over the committee's efforts to review the tax records of Trump and his businesses.
JUST IN: Whisky, dog toys... and trademark law.
SCOTUS has agreed to hear a dispute between Jack Daniel's and a company that makes squeaking "Bad Spaniels" dog toys. The case will have implications for the tension between parody & intellectual property. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zr_e1p3.pdf
In a quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS adds no new cases to its docket. The court will not hear Brooks v. Abbott, a challenge to an alleged racial gerrymander of a state senate district in Texas. Here's the full order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/112122zor_7lhn.pdf
JUST IN: The Biden administration, as expected, asks the Supreme Court to revive Biden's student-loan relief plan. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit blocked the government from implementing the plan; Biden wants SCOTUS to lift that ruling. https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/22A444-2.pdf
JUST IN: The Supreme Court DENIES Arizona GOP chair Kelli Ward's bid to block the Jan. 6 committee from reviewing her phone records. Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissent from the court's brief, unexplained order denying Ward's request.
NEW: Another fight on the shadow docket over a subpoena seeking information about election interference. Arizona GOP chairwoman Kelli Ward is asking SCOTUS to block the Jan. 6 committee's subpoena for her phone records. Here's Ward's filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A350.pdf