Moncrieffe v. Holder

Moncrieffe v. Holder

Opinion analysis: Washington state motor-fuel tax violates Yakama Treaty – Bethany Berger

A “view” from the courtroom: Trials of Mississippi – Mark Walsh

Argument preview: Justices to tackle important agency-deference question – Amy Howe

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Mar. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of March 15, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-702	5th Cir.	Oct 10, 2012 Tr.Aud.	Apr 23, 2013	7-2	Sotomayor	OT 2012

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. represents the petitioner in this case.

Holding: If a noncitizen’s conviction for a marijuana distribution offense fails to establish that the offense involved either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana, it is not an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 23, 2013. Justice Thomas and Justice Alito filed dissenting opinions.

Opinion recap: Easing a severe drug law (Lyle Denniston)
Argument recap: Catching on slowly (Lyle Denniston)
Argument preview: Do facts really matter? (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Dec 7 2011	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 9, 2012)
Jan 5 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 8, 2012.
Feb 2 2012	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including March 9, 2012.
Mar 9 2012	Brief of respondent Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General in opposition filed.
Mar 13 2012	Reply of petitioner Adrian Moncrieffe filed. (Distributed)
Mar 14 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 30, 2012.
Apr 2 2012	Petition GRANTED.
Apr 23 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 21, 2012.
Apr 23 2012	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 29, 2012.
Jun 8 2012	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Adrian Moncrieffe.
Jun 11 2012	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jun 18 2012	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.
Jun 19 2012	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is further extended to and including June 22, 2012.
Jun 19 2012	The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is further extended to and including August 31, 2012.
Jun 19 2012	Counsel for the petitioner will file the reply brief on the merits on or before September 21, 2012.
Jun 22 2012	Brief of petitioner Adrian Moncrieffe filed.
Jun 28 2012	Brief amici curiae of Immigration Law Professors filed.
Jun 29 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Human Rights First filed.
Jun 29 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law filed.
Jun 29 2012	Brief amici curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center, et al. filed.
Jul 23 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Jul 24 2012	CIRCULATED.
Aug 1 2012	Record received from U.S.C.A. for 5th Circuit. (1 envelope)
Aug 23 2012	Adminsitrative Record from Board of Immigration Appeals is electronic.
Aug 31 2012	Brief of respondent Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
Sep 21 2012	Reply of petitioner Adrian Moncrieffe filed. (Distributed)
Oct 10 2012	Argued. For petitioner: Thomas C. Goldstein, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Pratik A. Shah, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
Apr 23 2013	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., and Alito, J., filed dissenting opinions.
May 28 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Jun 3 2013	Record returned to U.S.Court of Appeals for 5th Circuit.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Washington state motor-fuel tax violates Yakama Treaty – Bethany Berger

A “view” from the courtroom: Trials of Mississippi – Mark Walsh

Argument preview: Justices to tackle important agency-deference question – Amy Howe
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in three cases: Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Nielsen v. Preap and Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinions in two cases: Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP and Frank v. Gaos.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Frank v. Gaos This class action settlement case is remanded for the courts below to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
- Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP A business engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the limited purpose of enforcing security interests under 15 U. S. C. §1692f(6).
- Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.
- Nielsen v. Preap The judgments of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- that respondents, who are deportable for certain specified crimes, are not subject to 8 U. S. C. §1226(c)(2)’s mandatory-detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail -- are reversed, and the cases are remanded.
- Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. The Supreme Court of Washington’s judgment -- that the “right to travel” provision of the 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians pre-empts the state’s fuel tax as applied to Cougar Den’s importation of fuel by public highway for sale within the reservation -- is affirmed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 52

Cases decided 26

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	52
Cases decided	26
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)

29
Conference