|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-459||1st Cir.||Apr 23, 2018||Jun 21, 2018||8-1||Sotomayor||OT 2017|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in this case.
Holding: A putative notice sent to a nonpermanent resident to appear at a removal proceeding that fails to designate a specific time or place for that proceeding does not end the continuous residence period calculation necessary for possible cancellation of the individual’s removal.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 21, 2018. Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 27 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 30, 2017)|
|Oct 25 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 29, 2017.|
|Oct 30 2017||Brief amicus curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association filed.|
|Nov 15 2017||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 29, 2017 to December 12, 2017, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Nov 16 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including December 12, 2017.|
|Dec 12 2017||Brief of respondent Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General in opposition filed.|
|Dec 13 2017||Waiver of the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.|
|Dec 19 2017||Reply of petitioner Wescley Fonseca Pereira filed.|
|Dec 20 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2018.|
|Jan 08 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2018.|
|Jan 12 2018||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 25 2018||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.|
|Feb 21 2018||Brief of petitioner Wescley Fonseca Pereira filed.|
|Feb 21 2018||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Feb 23 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, April 23, 2018.|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amicus curiae of National Immigrant Justice Center filed.|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amici curiae of American Immigration Lawyers Association, et al. filed.|
|Feb 28 2018||Brief amicus curiae of Former BIA Chairman & Immigration Judge Schmidt filed.|
|Mar 07 2018||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 23 2018||Brief of respondent Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 30 2018||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit.|
|Apr 02 2018||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Apr 13 2018||Reply of petitioner Wescley Fonseca Pereira filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 23 2018||Argued. For petitioner: David J. Zimmer, Boston, Mass. For respondent: Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Jun 21 2018||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Jul 23 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
We are honored to be chosen as the winner of an American Journalism Online Award for Best Non-profit News Source. Thanks to everyone for reading & supporting SCOTUSblog, including on our opinion-day live blogs, which the awarding judge called a "digital townsquare." #AJOawards
The winner of the award for Best Non-Profit News Source is @scotusblog. Judge @juliachanb called the site “a crucial tool in a political journalist’s toolbox” and praised their recent site revamp and dedication to transparency. https://www.scotusblog.com 2/
Quick Tok explainer on yesterday’s voting rights case at the Supreme Court—Merrill v. Milligan.
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...