|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.|
A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion law, but the six conservative justices appear divided about whether to entirely overrule Roe v. Wade. @AHoweBlogger's first take from this morning's argument:
Majority of court appears poised to uphold Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks - SCOTUSblog
It has been nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirme...
Starting momentarily: Oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case involving Mississippi’s attempt to ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The state has asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. We’ll be live-tweeting the argument here in this thread.
Twenty minutes before the start of oral argument, here’s the scene outside the Supreme Court.
Photos by @katieleebarlow.
TODAY AT SCOTUS: The case that could determine the future of abortion in America. Oral argument begins at 10 a.m. EST. We'll be live-tweeting the full argument. You can also listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx.
Here's our preview from @AHoweBlogger: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/roe-v-wade-hangs-in-balance-as-reshaped-court-prepares-to-hear-biggest-abortion-case-in-decades/
Our cross-platform coverage of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization includes, of course, TikTok. Follow us there if you don't already! And tune in for @katieleebarlow's live dispatch from outside the court tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
SCOTUS was inundated with "friend of the court" briefs -- more than 140 of them -- in the abortion case being heard tomorrow. We reviewed them all. Here's a guide to the many arguments being pushed by academics, politicians, & interest groups in the case.
We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to - SCOTUSblog
More than 140 amicus briefs were filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the potentially momentou...