|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1498||9th Cir.||Oct 2, 2017||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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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.|
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.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
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.