|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-820||2d Cir.||Dec 11, 2013||Mar 5, 2014||9-0||Thomas||OT 2013|
Holding: The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction creates a near-automatic return remedy for children who have been abducted to another country. To invoke that return remedy, the parent seeking the child’s return must file a petition seeking the return within one year of the child’s abduction. After one year has passed, the Convention still directs the court to order the child’s return, “unless it is demonstrated that the child is settled in its new environment.” The Court holds that the one-year period may not be equitably tolled, even if the abducting parent has concealed the child’s whereabouts until after the one-year period has passed.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on March 5, 2014. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 2 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 4, 2013)|
|Feb 4 2013||Brief of respondent Diana Lucia Montoya Alvarez in opposition filed.|
|Feb 14 2013||Reply of petitioner Manuel Jose Lozano filed.|
|Feb 20 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 15, 2013.|
|Mar 18 2013||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|May 24 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Jun 4 2013||Supplemental brief of petitioner Manuel Jose Lozano filed.|
|Jun 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.|
|Jun 24 2013||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Jul 12 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 30, 2013.|
|Jul 12 2013||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including October 22, 2013.|
|Aug 28 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Aug 30 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Aug 30 2013||Brief of petitioner Manuel Jose Lozano filed.|
|Sep 4 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Mexican Association for Abducted and Missing Children in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 5 2013||Brief amici curiae of International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (IAML) filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 6 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Reunite International Child Abduction Centre in support of neither party filed.|
|Sep 6 2013||Brief amicus curiae of National Center for Missing and Exploited Children filed.|
|Sep 6 2013||Brief amici curiae of A Child Is Missing, Inc., et al. filed.|
|Sep 11 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday December 11, 2013.|
|Sep 17 2013||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 1 2013||Record received from U.S.C.A. for the Second Circuit - 1 envelope. The oral argument is electronic (Not on PACER).|
|Oct 1 2013||Additonal record received from the U.S.C.A. Second Circuit. (1 envelope containing SEALED documents.|
|Oct 22 2013||Brief of respondent Diana Lucia Montoya Alvarez filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 29 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment & Appeals Project (DV LEAP), et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 15 2013||Record from U.S.D.C. for Southern District of California is electronic.|
|Nov 18 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 21 2013||Reply of petitioner Manuel Jose Lozano filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 22 2013||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York(1 Box / Part of the record is located on PACER).|
|Dec 11 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Shawn P. Regan, New York, N. Y. For respondent: Lauren A. Moskowitz, New York, N. Y.; and Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae).|
|Mar 5 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.|
|Apr 7 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Apr 8 2014||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Southern District of New York has been returned.|
|Apr 8 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. for the Second Circuit has been returned.|
A surprising stat at this point in the term: Both Kagan and Breyer have been in the majority slightly more often than Alito.
Kavanaugh continues to have the highest rate (as he has for most of the term). Sotomayor has the lowest.
Still 15 cases left. So this could all change.
The first two pieces in our symposium on yesterday's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia are up. First, @JimOleske dissects the decision in light of the court's shadow-docket ruling in Tandon v. Newsom, which took a very different approach to free exercise.
Fulton quiets Tandon’s thunder: A free exercise puzzle - SCOTUSblog
This article is the first entry in a symposium on the court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. ...
Number of pages written by each justice in the five decisions handed down this week (majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents all included):
While today's decision in Fulton v. Philadelphia is a win for a Catholic group seeking to participate in the city's foster program, it stops short of the broad endorsement of religious freedom the challengers had hoped for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis:
Court holds that city’s refusal to make referrals to faith-based agency violates Constitution - SCOTUSblog
In a clash between religious freedom and public policies that protect LGBTQ people, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday...
Now do we say that Sonia Sotomayor and the other liberals supported child slavery by all voting for Nestle today? Of course not. And Nestle’s lawyers like @Neal_katyal obviously don’t either. The cheap attacks on the court and thoughtful lawyers did not age well. -tg
The claim @nealkatyal was defending slavery is flat wrong & libelous. Here is what he actually said, which is the reverse: child slavery is abhorrent, criminal, horrific. Remember in a pending case he can't comment, so read what he really said in full.
Tired from this morning's momentous opinions? Get ready to do it all again next week -- three times. The court just revealed that next Monday, Wednesday and Friday will all be opinion days.
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.