|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 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...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.