|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 SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.