|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-1432||11th Cir.||Mar 2, 2020||Jun 1, 2020||7-2||Kavanaugh||OT 2019|
Holding: Title 8 U. S. C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a removable noncitizen’s factual challenges to an order denying relief under the international Convention Against Torture, which protects noncitizens from removal to a country where they would likely face torture.
Judgment: Reversed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 1, 2020. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|May 14 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 14, 2019)|
|May 14 2019||Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.|
|Jun 04 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from June 14, 2019 to July 15, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jun 05 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including July 15, 2019.|
|Jul 11 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 15, 2019 to August 14, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 12 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including August 14, 2019.|
|Aug 08 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 14, 2019 to September 9, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Aug 09 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including September 9, 2019.|
|Sep 09 2019||Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General in opposition filed.|
|Sep 25 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019.|
|Sep 25 2019||Reply of petitioner Nidal Khalid Nasrallah filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 15 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019.|
|Oct 18 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 18 2019||As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.|
|Nov 18 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Nov 20 2019||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 9, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 15, 2020.|
|Nov 26 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 2, 2020.|
|Dec 09 2019||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed).|
|Dec 09 2019||Brief of petitioner Nidal Khalid Nasrallah filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Brief amici curiae of Former Executive Office of Immigration Review Judges filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Dec 16 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Legal Service Providers filed.|
|Jan 09 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Jan 15 2020||Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General filed.|
|Jan 21 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 22 2020||the record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER|
|Feb 14 2020||Reply of petitioner Nidal Khalid Nasrallah filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 02 2020||Argued. For petitioner: Paul Hughes, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Mar 10 2020||Sealed documents were requested and electronically received from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.|
|Jun 01 2020||Judgment REVERSED. Kavanaugh, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined.|
|Jul 06 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.