|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.|
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.
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!
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.