Sessions v. Morales-Santana

Editor's Note :

Breaking News :

Sessions v. Morales-Santana

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Feb. 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

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-1191	2d Cir.	Nov 9, 2016 Tr.Aud.	Jun 12, 2017	8-0	Ginsburg	OT 2016

Holding: (1) The gender line Congress drew in Section 1409(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act -- which creates an exception for an unwed U.S.-citizen mother, but not for such a father, to the physical-presence requirement for the transmission of U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad -- is incompatible with the Fifth Amendment's requirement that the government accord to all persons "the equal protection of the laws"; and (2) because the Supreme Court is not equipped to convert Section 1409(c)'s exception into the main rule displacing other relevant provisions of the statute, it falls to Congress to select a uniform prescription that neither favors nor disadvantages any person on the basis of gender.

Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on June 12, 2017. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Immigration symposium: The future of immigration exceptionalism (David Rubenstein)
Immigration symposium: Prelude to a turning point (Charles Roth)
Opinion analysis: Court rejects gender-based distinctions in citizenship laws (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Searching for a remedy for constitutional violation on citizenship (Amy Howe)
A "view" from the courtroom: The election and U.S. values (Mark Walsh)
Argument preview: Justices to take on citizenship question – again (Amy Howe)
Court to hear major new controversies -- next Term (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Feb 12 2016	Application (15A858) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from February 29, 2016 to March 30, 2016, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.
Feb 16 2016	Application (15A858) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until March 30, 2016.
Mar 22 2016	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 21, 2016)
Apr 11 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 23, 2016.
May 17 2016	Letter dated May 17, 2016, from the Solicitor General received notifying the Court of an error in the petition appendix.
May 23 2016	Brief of respondent Luis Ramon Morales-Santana in opposition filed.
Jun 7 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 23, 2016.
Jun 7 2016	Reply of petitioner Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
Jun 27 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 27, 2016.
Jun 28 2016	Petition GRANTED.
Aug 1 2016	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General.
Aug 4 2016	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 19, 2016.
Aug 4 2016	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 26, 2016.
Aug 19 2016	Brief of petitioner Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General filed.
Sep 2 2016	SET FOR ARGUMENT On Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Sep 7 2016	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.
Sep 9 2016	Record has been requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.
Sep 15 2016	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent.
Sep 15 2016	Record received from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit is electronic.
Sep 26 2016	Brief of respondent Luis Ramon Morales-Santana filed.
Sep 28 2016	CIRCULATED
Sep 30 2016	Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 3 2016	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Oct 3 2016	Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law, Federal Courts, Citizenship, and Remedies Scholars filed. (Distributed).
Oct 3 2016	Brief amici curiae of Professors of History, Political Science, and Law filed. (Distributed)
Oct 3 2016	Brief amici curiae of Equality Now, et al. filed.
Oct 3 2016	Brief amici curiae of The National Immigrant Justice Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 3 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Population and Family Scholars filed. (Distributed)
Oct 3 2016	Brief amici curiae of Scholars on Statelessness filed. (Distributed)
Oct 26 2016	Reply of petitioner Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
Nov 9 2016	Argued. For petitioner: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Stephen A. Broome, Los Angeles, Cal.
Nov 15 2016	Record received from the Board of Immigration Appeals is electronic.
Nov 16 2016	Letter from counsel for petitioner received and distributed.
Jun 12 2017	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part, in which Alito, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Jul 14 2017	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Court will review census citizenship dispute this term – Amy Howe

Argument preview: Justices to examine rejection of contracts in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Argument preview: Justices to consider ability of government to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann
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

Chief Justice Roberts at Belmont University

On February 6, Chief Justice John Roberts spoke at Belmont University College of Law with Alberto Gonzales, dean of the law school and former U.S. attorney general.

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

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)