|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1363||9th Cir.||Oct 10, 2018||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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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.|
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.