|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.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
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.
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.