Breaking News

Ovalles v. Barr

Consolidated with:

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.

DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jan 29 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 7, 2019)
Jan 29 2019Pursuant 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 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 7, 2019 to April 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
Feb 28 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 8, 2019.
Mar 28 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 8, 2019 to May 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
Mar 29 2019Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 8, 2019.
May 08 2019Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General in opposition filed.
May 23 2019Reply of petitioner Ruben Ovalles filed.
May 28 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.
Jun 17 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
Jun 24 2019Petition 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 2019Because 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 2019As 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 2019SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 9, 2019. VIDED.
Oct 23 2019Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 5th Circuit.
Dec 09 2019Argued. 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 2020Judgment 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.