|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-309||6th Cir.||Apr 26, 2017||Jun 22, 2017||9-0||Kagan||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) The text of 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) -- which prohibits "procur[ing], contrary to law, the naturalization of any person" -- makes clear that, to secure a conviction, the federal government must establish that the defendant's illegal act played a role in her acquisition of citizenship; (2) when the underlying illegality alleged in a Section 1425(a) prosecution is a false statement to government officials, a jury must decide whether the false statement so altered the naturalization process as to have influenced an award of citizenship; and (3) measured against this analysis, the jury instructions in this case were in error, and the government's assertion that any instructional error was harmless is left for resolution on remand.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 22, 2017. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 2 2016||Application (16A125) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 25, 2016 to September 26, 2016, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Aug 3 2016||Application (16A125) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until September 26, 2016.|
|Sep 8 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 11, 2016)|
|Oct 11 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 10, 2016.|
|Oct 28 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 23, 2016.|
|Nov 23 2016||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Dec 2 2016||Reply of petitioner Divna Maslenjak filed.|
|Dec 7 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 9 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.|
|Jan 13 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 9 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party, or of neither party, from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Feb 17 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, April 26, 2017|
|Feb 22 2017||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.|
|Feb 23 2017||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER.|
|Feb 27 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Feb 27 2017||Brief of petitioner Divna Maslenjak filed.|
|Mar 6 2017||Brief amici curiae of Immigrant Defense Project, et al. filed.|
|Mar 6 2017||Brief amici curiae of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (AAJC), et al. filed.|
|Mar 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 29 2017||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 12 2017||Reply of petitioner Divna Maslenjak filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 26 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Christopher Landau, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Robert A. Parker, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 22 2017||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Thomas, J., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.|
|Jul 24 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
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.