|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.|
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!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.