|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-438||8th Cir.||Oct 14, 2020||Mar 4, 2021||5-3||Gorsuch||OT 2020|
Holding: A nonpermanent resident seeking to cancel a lawful removal order fails to carry his burden of showing that he has not been convicted of a disqualifying offense when the statutory conviction on his record is ambiguous regarding whether a disqualifying offense formed the basis of his conviction.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on March 4, 2021. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 30 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 1, 2019)|
|Sep 30 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.|
|Oct 24 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 1, 2019 to December 2, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 25 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 2, 2019.|
|Nov 12 2019||Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General filed.|
|Nov 25 2019||Reply of petitioner Clemente A. Pereida filed.|
|Nov 26 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019.|
|Dec 18 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Dec 18 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.|
|Jan 10 2020||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Clemente A. Pereida.|
|Jan 28 2020||Brief of petitioner Clemente A. Pereida filed.|
|Jan 31 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 30, 2020.|
|Feb 04 2020||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Feb 04 2020||Brief amici curiae of Former United States Immigration Judges and Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals filed.|
|Feb 04 2020||Brief amici curiae of Immigration Law Professors filed.|
|Feb 04 2020||Brief amici curiae of Immigrant Defense Project, et al. filed.|
|Feb 19 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Feb 19 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Feb 24 2020||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Feb 26 2020||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit including the administrative record (1-Box).|
|Feb 27 2020||Brief of respondent William P. Barr, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 04 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 16 2020||ORAL ARGUMENT POSTPONED.|
|Mar 30 2020||Reply of petitioner Clemente A. Pereida filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 13 2020||Argument to be rescheduled for the October Term 2020.|
|Jul 13 2020||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 14, 2020.|
|Oct 14 2020||Argued. For petitioner: Brian P. Goldman, San Francisco, Cal. For respondent: Jonathan C. Bond, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Mar 04 2021||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Gorsuch, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Kagan, JJ., joined. Barrett, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.|
|Apr 05 2021||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...