|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-67||9th Cir.||Feb 25, 2020||May 7, 2020||9-0||Ginsburg||OT 2019|
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion when the court reached out to decide a question never raised by the respondent, namely, whether 8 U. S. C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on May 7, 2020. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 29 2019||Application (18A1117) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 13, 2019 to June 12, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Apr 30 2019||Application (18A1117) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until June 12, 2019.|
|May 31 2019||Application (18A1117) to extend further the time from June 12, 2019 to July 12, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|May 31 2019||Application (18A1117) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until July 12, 2019.|
|Jul 12 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2019)|
|Jul 18 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 12, 2019 to August 28, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jul 19 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 28, 2019.|
|Aug 28 2019||Brief of respondent Evelyn Sineneng-Smith in opposition filed.|
|Sep 10 2019||Reply of petitioner United States filed.|
|Sep 11 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.|
|Oct 04 2019||Petition GRANTED.|
|Oct 25 2019||Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.|
|Nov 15 2019||Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 2, 2019. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 15, 2020.|
|Nov 26 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, February 25, 2020.|
|Dec 02 2019||Joint appendix filed.|
|Dec 02 2019||Brief of petitioner United States filed.|
|Dec 09 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Eugene Volokh in support of neither party filed.|
|Dec 09 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed.|
|Jan 09 2020||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.|
|Jan 09 2020||The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jan 14 2020||The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit and from the U.S.D.C. California Northern District (San Jose) is electronic and located on PACER, and sealed record material from both courts received by Clerk and available electronically.|
|Jan 15 2020||Brief of respondent Evelyn Sineneng-Smith filed.|
|Jan 20 2020||Brief amici curiae of The Rutherford Institute, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 21 2020||CIRCULATED|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Immigration Representatives and Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Amicus brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers not accepted for filing. (January 28, 2020 - Corrected brief to be submitted.)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed. (January 28, 2020). (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of Amnesty International filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Religious Organizations filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of City and County of San Francisco, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2020||Brief amici curiae of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 14 2020||Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 25 2020||Argued. For petitioner: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Mark C. Fleming, Boston, Mass.|
|May 07 2020||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion.|
|Jun 08 2020||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.