Sessions v. Dimaya

Editor's Note :

Sessions v. Dimaya

Argument preview: Justices to consider whether First Amendment applies to public-access channels – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices seem divided about government right to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

A "view" from the courtroom: Back to the bench for Justice Ginsburg – Mark Walsh

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

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

Argument preview: Justices to consider whether First Amendment applies to public-access channels – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices seem divided about government right to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

A "view" from the courtroom: Back to the bench for Justice Ginsburg – Mark Walsh
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
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- 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.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 44

Cases decided 11

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

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.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	44
Cases decided	11
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74