Nielsen v. Preap

Editor's Note :

Nielsen v. Preap

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 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

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)

Merits Cases by Sitting

Majority Opinions by Author

Voting Breakdown Argued Cases

Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

June 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 June 20, 2019

Enter your email address to subscribe to updates to this case (by doing so, you are accepting the terms in our privacy policy):

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
16-1363	9th Cir.	Oct 10, 2018 Tr.Aud.	Mar 19, 2019	5-4	Alito	OT 2018

Holding: 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.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on March 19, 2019. Justice Alito announced the judgment of the court and delivered the opinion of the court with respect to Parts I, III-A, III-B-1, and IV, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II and III-B-2, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

Opinion analysis: Justices uphold broad interpretation of immigration detention provision (Jennifer Chacon)
OT2018 #3: "Ordinary Pinch" (First Mondays)
Argument analysis: Are there limits to the government’s power to detain immigrants without a hearing? (Jennifer Chacon)
OT2018 #2: "Alea Iacta Est" (First Mondays)
Argument preview: Justices once again consider proper scope of immigration law’s mandatory detention provision (Jennifer Chacon)
Justices decline to weigh in on constitutionality of death penalty (Amy Howe)
Petitions of the day (Aurora Barnes)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Mar 31 2017	Application (16A944) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 11, 2017 to May 11, 2017, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Apr 07 2017	Application (16A944) granted by Justice Kennedy extending the time to file until May 11, 2017.
May 11 2017	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 12, 2017)
May 18 2017	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including July 12, 2017, for all respondents.
Jun 26 2017	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including August 11, 2017.
Aug 08 2017	Brief of respondents Mony Preap, et al. in opposition filed.
Aug 23 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/25/2017.
Aug 23 2017	Reply of petitioners Elaine C. Duke, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 27 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/2/2018.
Mar 12 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/16/2018.
Mar 19 2018	Petition GRANTED.
Apr 10 2018	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.
Apr 10 2018	Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
Apr 10 2018	Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 1, 2018. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 6, 2018. The reply brief is to be filed pursuant to Rule 25.3.
May 11 2018	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.
May 29 2018	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioners GRANTED.
Jun 01 2018	Brief of petitioners Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed.
Jun 08 2018	Brief amicus curiae of U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, et al. filed.
Jun 08 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.
Jun 08 2018	Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.
Jul 09 2018	SET FOR ARGUMENT On Wednesday, October 10, 2018
Aug 03 2018	CIRCULATED
Aug 06 2018	Brief of respondents Mony Preap, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 07 2018	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Aug 10 2018	Brief amicus curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center filed. (Distributed)
Aug 13 2018	Brief amici curiae of Administrative and Immigration Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
Aug 13 2018	Brief amici curiae of Constitutional and Immigration Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
Aug 13 2018	Brief amici curiae of Former INS and DHS General Counsels filed. (Distributed)
Aug 13 2018	Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed. (Distributed)
Aug 13 2018	Brief amici curiae of Advancement Project, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Aug 30 2018	Record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.
Aug 30 2018	Record from the U.S.D.C. California Northern District (Oakland) is electronic and located on PACER, with the exception of Restricted documents that's electronic.
Sep 05 2018	Reply of petitioners Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Oct 10 2018	Argued. For petitioners: Zachary D. Tripp, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Cecillia D. Wang, New York, N. Y.
Mar 19 2019	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III–A, III–B–1, and IV, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II and III–B–2, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kavanaugh, J., joined. Kavanaugh, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.
Apr 22 2019	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Court gives broad meaning to “confidential” in FOIA exemption for commercial and financial information – Mark Fenster

Opinion analysis: Punitive damages not available under general maritime law in personal-injury unseaworthiness action – Joel Goldstein

Opinion analysis: Long-time prohibition on registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks is struck down – Megan Carpenter
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
On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the June 20 conference; the justices granted eight new cases, for a total of five hours of oral argument next term: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Ovalles v. Barr, Dex Media Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, Maine Community Health Options v. United States, Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States, Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States, Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. and Banister v. Davis.
Also on Monday, the justices released their opinions in four argued cases: United States v. Davis, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, Iancu v. Brunetti and The Dutra Group v. Batterton.
The Supreme Court will release opinions in one or more argued cases on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
- Gamble v. United States
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media Where commercial or financial information is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of privacy, the information is “confidential” within the meaning of 5 U. S. C. §552(b)(4), the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4.
- Iancu v. Brunetti The Lanham Act prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks infringes the First Amendment.
- The Dutra Group v. Batterton A plaintiff may not recover punitive damages on a maritime claim of unseaworthiness.
- United States v. Davis Title 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B), which provides enhanced penalties for using a firearm during a “crime of violence,” is unconstitutionally vague.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Bennett Regulator Guards Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that it had jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review of respondent’s patent over respondent’s objection that it was time-barred; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred when it rejected the longstanding principle that a dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if a suit had never been brought, splitting the circuits.
- Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
- Kelly v. United States Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 69

Cases decided 61

Summary reversals 5

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Merits Docket OT18 (June 24, 2019)
Merits Cases by Sitting
Majority Opinions by Author
Voting Breakdown Argued Cases
Majority Lineup 5-4 Decisions

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at the Supreme Court Historical Society

On June 3, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with David Rubenstein for the Supreme Court Historical Society’s annual lecture at the Supreme Court.

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	69
Cases decided	61
Summary reversals	5
Merits cases granted to date	74

3
Orders
Opinions

6
Conference

10
Orders
Opinions

13
Conference

17
Orders
Opinions

20
Conference
Opinions

24
Orders
Opinions