| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14-185 | 5th Cir. | Apr 29, 2015 | Jun 15, 2015 | 8-1 | Kagan | OT 2014 |
Holding: A court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the rejection by the Board of Immigration Appeals of a non-citizen’s motion to reopen, even when the Board rejects the motion as untimely or it rejects a motion requesting equitable tolling of the time limit.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on June 15, 2015. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| Aug 14 2014 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 17, 2014) |
| Sep 17 2014 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 17, 2014. |
| Oct 9 2014 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including November 17, 2014. |
| Nov 17 2014 | Brief of respondent Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General filed. |
| Dec 2 2014 | Reply of petitioner Noel Reyes Mata filed. |
| Dec 3 2014 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015. |
| Jan 12 2015 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 16, 2015. |
| Jan 13 2015 | Record received from U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit. The record is electronic. |
| Jan 16 2015 | Petition GRANTED. William Peterson, Esquire, of Houston, Texas, is invited to brief and argue this case, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below. |
| Feb 27 2015 | Deferred appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.) |
| Feb 27 2015 | Brief of petitioner Noel Reyes Mata filed. |
| Feb 27 2015 | Brief of respondent Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General supporting reversal and remand filed. |
| Mar 5 2015 | Brief amicus curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center filed. |
| Mar 6 2015 | SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, April 29, 2015 |
| Mar 6 2015 | Brief amici curiae of The American Immigration Council, et al. filed. |
| Mar 16 2015 | CIRCULATED. |
| Mar 30 2015 | Brief of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed. (Distributed) |
| Apr 6 2015 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General. |
| Apr 17 2015 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED. |
| Apr 21 2015 | Reply of respondent Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General filed. (Distributed) |
| Apr 22 2015 | Reply of petitioner Noel Reyes Mata filed. (Distributed) |
| Apr 29 2015 | Argued. For petitioner: Mark C. Fleming, Boston, Mass. For respondent in support of reversal and remand: Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For amicus curiae in support of judgment below: William R. Peterson, Houston, Tex. (Appointed by this Court.) |
| Jun 15 2015 | Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion. |
| Jul 17 2015 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.
NEW: Next Monday will be a Supreme Court opinion day. Starting at 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue one or more decisions in argued cases from the current term.
Just in: The Supreme Court denies a request to block the execution of Clarence Dixon, an Arizona man who is scheduled to be put to death today. Dixon's attorneys argued that, because of a mental illness, Dixon is not mentally fit to be executed under the Eighth Amendment.
On this date in “How Appealing” history: At this very moment twenty years ago, this blog came into existence, boosting your humble author from nearly total obscurity to perhaps a modicum less than nearly total obscurity.
On this happy occasion, I once https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2022/05/06/#179553
How the unprecedented Supreme Court leak may have been a response to an earlier disclosure about the justices' private deliberations. @TomGoldsteinSB on what it all means for the court and its secrets.

How the leak might have happened - SCOTUSblog
Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was...
www.scotusblog.com
JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak.