|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, for the first time in 10 years, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced the Cameras in the Courtroom Act, which would require video recording of Supreme Court oral arguments and opinion announcements.
Text - S.807 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Cameras in the Courtroom Act
Text for S.807 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Cameras in the Courtroom Act
In clash between private property rights and pro-union interests, the Supreme Court invalidates a California regulation that requires agricultural employers to allow union organizers onto their property to speak with workers. SCOTUS says the regulation violates the 5th Amendment.
BREAKING: In major First Amendment case on student speech, the Supreme Court rules 8-1 in favor of a former high school student who was disciplined by her public school after sending a vulgar message on Snapchat complaining about the school's cheerleading squad.
In the second Supreme Court opinion of the day, the court holds that the structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency (which regulates Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) is unconstitutional because of the limits on the president's ability to remove the agency's director.
The Supreme Court issues its opinion in the "hot pursuit" case -- a case about when police can follow a fleeing suspect into a home without a warrant. In an opinion by Kagan, the court declines to adopt a bright-line rule on "hot pursuits" of people suspected of misdemeanors.
The Supreme Court will release one or more opinions at 10:00 a.m. Join us on the live blog beginning at 9:45. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/announcement-of-opinions-for-wednesday-june-23/
After the Supreme Court handed down three opinions this morning, 12 cases remain outstanding for this term. They include voting rights, student free speech, and anonymous donors. We expect more opinions on Wednesday, June 23 at 10:00 a.m. ET.
We will open the live blog at 9:45.
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.