|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.|
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
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
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.