|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-1402||9th Cir.||Feb 23, 2015||Jun 15, 2015||5-4||Scalia||OT 2014|
Holding: The Ninth Circuit’s decision holding that a U.S. citizen has a protected liberty interest in her marriage that entitled her to review of the denial of a visa to her non-U.S.-citizen spouse, as well its holding that the government deprived her of that liberty interest when it denied the spouse’s visa application without providing a more detailed explanation of its reasons, is vacated.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on June 15, 2015. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 13 2014||Application (13A932) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 24, 2014 to April 23, 2014, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Mar 20 2014||Application (13A932) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until April 23, 2014.|
|Apr 9 2014||Application (13A932) to extend further the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 23, 2014 to May 23, 2014, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Apr 10 2014||Application (13A932) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until May 23, 2014.|
|May 23 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 26, 2014)|
|Jun 17 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 11, 2014.|
|Jul 31 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including August 25, 2014.|
|Aug 25 2014||Brief of respondent Fauzia Din in opposition filed.|
|Sep 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Sep 12 2014||Reply of petitioners John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 14 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including November 26, 2014.|
|Nov 14 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 12, 2015.|
|Nov 26 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Nov 26 2014||Brief of petitioners John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, et al. filed.|
|Dec 22 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, February 23, 2015|
|Dec 22 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Dec 22 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jan 7 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 9 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jan 12 2015||Brief of respondent Fauzia Din filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 16 2015||Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Liberties Union filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 20 2015||Brief amici curiae of Law School Professors filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 20 2015||Brief amici curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 20 2015||Brief amici curiae of Former Consular Officers filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 20 2015||Brief amicus curiae of California Women's Law Center filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 20 2015||Brief amici curiae of National Justice for Our Neighbors, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 11 2015||Reply of petitioners John F. Kerry, Secretary of State, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 20 2015||Letter from counsel for the respondent filed.|
|Feb 23 2015||Argued. For petitioners: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Mark E. Haddad, Los Angeles, Cal.|
|Jun 15 2015||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, J., joined. Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Alito, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 17 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
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.