|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Apr 27, 2021
Issue: Whether a defendant, charged with unlawful reentry into the United States following removal, automatically satisfies the prerequisites to asserting the invalidity of the original removal order as an affirmative defense solely by showing that he was removed for a crime that would not be considered a removable offense under current circuit law, even if he cannot independently demonstrate administrative exhaustion or deprivation of the opportunity for judicial review.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 05 2020||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 5, 2020)|
|Oct 20 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 5, 2020 to December 7, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Oct 21 2020||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 7, 2020.|
|Dec 07 2020||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Refugio Palomar-Santiago.|
|Dec 07 2020||Brief of respondent Refugio Palomar-Santiago in opposition filed.|
|Dec 23 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.|
|Dec 23 2020||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 08 2021||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Jan 08 2021||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 22 2021||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner United States.|
|Jan 26 2021||Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent Refugio Palomar-Santiago.|
|Feb 03 2021||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.|
|Feb 22 2021||Motion to appoint counsel filed by respondent GRANTED, and Bradley N. Garcia, Esq., of Washington, D.C., is appointed to serve as counsel for respondent in this case.|
|Feb 22 2021||Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Feb 22 2021||Brief of petitioner United States filed.|
|Mar 01 2021||Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.|
|Mar 12 2021||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 27, 2021.|
|Mar 15 2021||Record requested.|
|Mar 15 2021||The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Mar 24 2021||Brief of respondent Refugio Palomar-Santiago filed.|
|Mar 29 2021||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Federal Defenders filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 30 2021||CIRCULATED|
|Mar 31 2021||Brief amicus curiae of The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 31 2021||Brief amici curiae of The National Immigration Project, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 31 2021||Brief amici curiae of Former Executive Office of Immigration Review Judges filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 31 2021||Brief amici curiae of Professors Kelly Lytle Hernández, Mae Ngai, and Ingrid Eagly filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 16 2021||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
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.