|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-588||D.D.C.||Nov 12, 2019||Jun 18, 2020||5-4||Roberts||OT 2019|
Holding: The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Judgment: Affirmed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 18, 2020. Roberts delivered the opinion of the court except as to Part IV. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan joined that opinion in full, and Justice Sotomayor joined as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh filed opinions concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 05 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 5, 2018)|
|Nov 27 2018||Letter of November 27, 2018 from the Solicitor General with respect to corrected supplemental brief of petitioners filed in case No. 18-587 filed. (11/28/2018)|
|Nov 30 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 5, 2018 to January 4, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Dec 03 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended to and including December 17, 2018, for all respondents.|
|Dec 06 2018||Brief amici curiae of The States of Texas, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 17 2018||Brief of respondents Trustees of Princeton University, Microsoft Corporation, Maria De La Cruz Perales Sanchez in opposition filed.|
|Dec 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Dec 26 2018||Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period under Rule 15.5 filed.|
|Jan 04 2019||Reply of petitioners Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.|
|Jun 10 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.|
|Jun 17 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 26 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2019.|
|Jun 28 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 18-587 and the petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment in No. 18-589 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Jul 01 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. 18-587. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 18-587. 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 fling is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”|
|Jul 08 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, November 12, 2019. VIDED|
|Sep 03 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 16 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit.|
|Sep 20 2019||Record received from the U.S.C.A. District of Columbia Circuit, is electronic|
|Nov 12 2019||Argued. For petitioners: Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For private respondents: Theodore B. Olson, Washington, D. C. For state respondents: Michael J. Mongan, Solicitor General, San Francisco, Cal. VIDED.|
|Jun 18 2020||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED and REMANDED (No. 18-587 Vacated in Part, Reversed in Part, and Remanded, and No. 18-589 February 13, 2018 order Vacated, November 9, 2017 order Affirmed in Part, March 29, 2018 order Reversed in Part, and case Remanded). Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and Sotomayor, J., joined as to all but Part IV. Sotomayor, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Alito and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Alito, J., and Kavanaugh, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. VIDED.|
|Jul 20 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Today at SCOTUS: Two oral arguments starting at 10 a.m. EST. One is on federal anti-discrimination laws. The other is on Medicare payments for drugs dispensed by hospitals -- with big questions about the doctrine of Chevron deference lurking in the background.
Bill Cosby’s prosecutors asked the Supreme Court to reinstate his conviction today. Quick explainer.
In our latest episode of SCOTUStalk, @shefalil of @19thnews joined us to preview Wednesday's argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. Shefali explains the current state of abortion access and the case's implications in Mississippi and across America.
Roe, Dobbs, and the current state of abortion access - SCOTUSblog
In advance of Wednesday's oral argument in the momentous abortion case, Shefali Luthra, a gender and health care r...
Update: Without calling for a response or referring the case to the full court, Justice Breyer just rejected last week's challenge from Massachusetts hospital workers who object to the hospital's COVID vaccine mandate.
(Breyer handles emergency requests from Massachusetts.)
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket challenge to a COVID vaccine mandate. This one is from employees at Mass General Brigham who say the Boston-based hospital violated federal law by not granting them exemptions from the hospital's vaccine policy. Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/21A175.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral argument in a case about Medicare payments to hospitals that serve low-income patients. Lots of money at stake, plus potential implications for the Chevron doctrine. @JACoganJr explains the case:
Money for safety-net hospitals at stake in dispute over Medicare payment formula - SCOTUSblog
When it comes to highlighting the complexity of the Medicare Act and its hospital payment rules, Becerra v. Empire...
Two days from now, SCOTUS will hear the biggest abortion case in a generation. In a battle over a Mississippi law, abortion opponents are asking the court to end the constitutional right to abortion. Here's our preview of the case, via @AHoweBlogger.
Roe v. Wade hangs in balance as reshaped court prepares to hear biggest abortion case in decades - SCOTUSblog
When he ran for president in 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would...