Sessions v. Dimaya

Editor's Note :

Sessions v. Dimaya

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 20, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-1498	9th Cir.	Oct 2, 2017 Tr.Aud.	Apr 17, 2018	5-4	Kagan	OT 2017

Holding: 18 U. S. C. §16(b), which defines “violent felony” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s removal provisions, is unconstitutionally vague.

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on April 17, 2018. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I, III, IV-B, and V, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch joined, and an opinion with respects to Parts II and IV-A, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joined. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined as to Parts I-C-2, II-A-1, and II-B.

The Annual: OT2017 in Review (First Mondays)
OT2017 #22: “Cf. Everything” (First Mondays)
Opinion analysis: Crime-based removal provision is unconstitutionally vague (Corrected) (Kevin Johnson)
OT2017 #2: "Who is the River Master?" (First Mondays)
Argument analysis: Faithful to Scalia, Gorsuch may be deciding vote for immigrant (Kevin Johnson)
OT2017 #1: "A Very Nice Office" (First Mondays)
Argument preview: Criminal removal – Is "crime of violence" void for vagueness? (Kevin Johnson)
Court releases October calendar (Amy Howe)
Immigration symposium: Immigration nuggets from October Term 2016 – What do they foreshadow? (John Eastman)
Immigration symposium: The future of immigration exceptionalism (David Rubenstein)
Immigration symposium: Prelude to a turning point (Charles Roth)
Immigration symposium: On immigration matters, the court’s watchwords are caution and deference (Richard Samp)
No decision in two immigration-enforcement cases (Kevin Johnson)
A "view" from the courtroom: A day for drama on the bench (Mark Walsh)
And then there were six – the remaining cases (Amy Howe)
And then there were nine – the remaining decisions (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Is the statutory phrase “crime of violence” in the immigration laws void for vagueness? (Kevin Johnson)
Argument preview: The void-for-vagueness doctrine applied to the U.S. immigration laws (Kevin Johnson)
Justices add eight new cases to docket for upcoming term (Amy Howe)
Petitions of the day (Kate Howard)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Apr 13 2016	Application (15A1049) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 24, 2016 to May 24, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Apr 24 2016	Application (15A1049) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until May 24, 2016.
May 13 2016	Application (15A1049) to extend further the time from May 24, 2016 to June 10, 2016, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
May 16 2016	Application (15A1049) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until June 10, 2016.
Jun 10 2016	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 13, 2016)
Jun 24 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 12, 2016.
Aug 12 2016	Brief of respondent James Garcia Dimaya in opposition filed.
Aug 31 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.
Aug 31 2016	Reply of petitioner Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
Sep 29 2016	Petition GRANTED.
Nov 07 2016	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General.
Nov 14 2016	Brief of petitioner Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General filed.
Nov 28 2016	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Dec 05 2016	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, January 17, 2017.
Dec 07 2016	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Dec 12 2016	CIRCULATED.
Dec 12 2016	Record received from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic.
Dec 14 2016	Brief of respondent James Garcia Dimaya filed. (Distributed)
Dec 21 2016	Brief amici curiae of Retired Article III Judges filed. (Distributed)
Dec 21 2016	Brief amici curiae of National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 21 2016	Brief amicus curiae of The National Immigration Law Center filed. (Distributed)
Dec 21 2016	Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Federal Defenders filed. (Distributed)
Jan 10 2017	Reply of petitioner Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
Jan 17 2017	Argued. For petitioner: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N. Y.
Jun 26 2017	This case is restored to the calendar for reargument.
Jul 19 2017	SET FOR REARGUMENT on Monday, October 2, 2017.
Aug 01 2017	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Aug 03 2017	Record received from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic.
Oct 02 2017	Argued. For petitioner: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. For respondent: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, New York, N.Y.
Apr 17 2018	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, IV-B, and V, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II and IV-A, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kennedy and Alito, JJ., joined as to Parts I-C-2, II-A-1, and II-B.
May 21 2018	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
The Supreme Court will release opinions in one or more argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
- Gamble v. United States
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Kelly v. United States Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 61

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	69
Cases decided	61
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions