|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.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
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.
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.