|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-930||9th Cir.||Dec 10, 2013||Jun 9, 2014||5-4||Kagan||OT 2013|
Holding: The Board of Immigration Appeals has interpreted the Child Status Protection Act as providing a remedy only to “aged-out” non-citizens – that is, those who turned twenty-one while their visa application is pending – who qualified or could have qualified as principal beneficiaries of a visa petition, rather than only as derivative beneficiaries piggy-backing on a parent. That is a permissible construction of the statute.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded on June 9, 2014. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgement, in which Justice Scalia joined. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Breyer joined, and in which Justice Thomas joined except as to footnote 3.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 13 2012||Application (12A612) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 25, 2012 to January 25, 2013, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Dec 18 2012||Application (12A612) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until January 25, 2013.|
|Jan 25 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due February 25, 2013)|
|Feb 22 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 3, 2013.|
|May 3 2013||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 24, 2013.|
|May 24 2013||Brief of respondents Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Jun 4 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.|
|Jun 6 2013||Reply of petitioner Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. filed. (Distributed).|
|Jun 24 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jul 26 2013||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 3, 2013.|
|Jul 26 2013||The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 28, 2013.|
|Aug 19 2013||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al.|
|Sep 3 2013||Brief of petitioners Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. filed.|
|Sep 17 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday December 10, 2013.|
|Sep 17 2013||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 19 2013||Records received from USCA for the Ninth Circuit. (electronically filed available through PACER)|
|Sep 19 2013||Records received from USDC for the Central District of California electronically filed and located on PACER.|
|Oct 7 2013||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Oct 28 2013||Brief of respondents Rosalina Cuellar de Osorio, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 4 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Catholic Legal Immigration Network Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 4 2013||Brief amici curiae of Immigration Advocacy Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 4 2013||Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Members of Congress filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 12 2013||Letter from counsel for amici curiae Immigration Advocacy Organizations received.|
|Nov 27 2013||Reply of petitioners Alejandro Mayorkas, Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 10 2013||Argued. For petitioners: Elaine J. Goldenberg, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Mark C. Fleming, Boston, Mass.|
|Jun 9 2014||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Kennedy and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Scalia, J., joined. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined except as to footnote 3.|
|Jul 3 2014||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Jul 17 2014||DISTRIBUTED.|
|Aug 11 2014||Rehearing DENIED.|
|Aug 11 2014||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
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.