|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-1015||5th Cir.||Dec 9, 2019||Mar 23, 2020||7-2||Breyer||OT 2019|
Holding: Because the phrase “questions of law” in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Limited Review Provision, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ “factual” due diligence claims for equitable tolling purposes.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on March 23, 2020. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Alito joined as to all but Part II–A–1.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 29 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 7, 2019)|
|Jan 29 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.|
|Feb 27 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 7, 2019 to April 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 28 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 8, 2019.|
|Mar 28 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 8, 2019 to May 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Mar 29 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 8, 2019.|
|May 08 2019||Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General in opposition filed.|
|May 23 2019||Reply of petitioner Ruben Ovalles filed.|
|May 28 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.|
|Jun 17 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 24 2019||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 2 presented by the petition. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 18-776 is granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Jun 24 2019||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 18-776. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 18-776. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Jun 24 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. VIDED. (September 4, 2019).|
|Sep 13 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 9, 2019. VIDED.|
|Oct 23 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.|
|Oct 25 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Dec 09 2019||Argued. For petitioners: Paul W. Hughes, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Mar 23 2020||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Alito, J., joined as to all but Part II-A-1. VIDED.|
|Apr 24 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
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...