|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1358||2d Cir.||Jan 18, 2017||Jun 19, 2017||4-2||Kennedy||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) The limited reach of the Bivens action informs the decision whether an implied damages remedy should be recognized in this case; (2) considering the relevant special factors in this case, a Bivens-type remedy should not be extended to the "detention policy claims" -- the allegations that the executive officials and wardens violated the detainees' due process and equal protection rights by holding them in restrictive conditions of confinement, and the allegation that the wardens violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by subjecting the detainees to frequent strip searches -- challenging the confinement conditions imposed on the detainees pursuant to the formal policy adopted by the executive officials in the wake of the September 11 attacks; (3) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in allowing the prisoner-abuse claim against Warden Dennis Hasty to go forward without conducting the required special-factors analysis; and (4) the executive officials and wardens are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to respondents' claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
Judgment: Reversed in part and vacated and remanded in part, 4-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 19, 2017. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court with respects to Parts I, II, III, IV-A, and V, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Alito joined; Justice Kennedy also delivered an opinion with respect to Part IV-B, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 26 2016||Application (15A894) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 10, 2016 to April 11, 2016, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Feb 26 2016||Application (15A894) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until April 11, 2016.|
|Apr 1 2016||Application (15A894) to extend further the time from April 11, 2016 to May 9, 2016, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.|
|Apr 4 2016||Application (15A894) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until May 9, 2016.|
|May 9 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 8, 2016)|
|May 9 2016||Appendix of James W. Ziglar filed.|
|May 26 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 8, 2016.|
|Jun 8 2016||Brief amici curiae of Former U.S. Attorneys General William P. Barr, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Jun 8 2016||Waiver of right of Federal Respondents to respond filed.|
|Aug 8 2016||Brief of respondents Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi, et al. in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 22 2016||Reply of petitioner James W. Ziglar filed.|
|Sep 21 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 7, 2016.|
|Oct 11 2016||Petition GRANTED. The petitions for writs of certiorari in Nos. 15-1359 and 15-1363 are granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.|
|Nov 10 2016||Letter from the Solicitor General regarding case caption. VIDED|
|Nov 18 2016||Joint appendix filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 18 2016||Brief of petitioner James W. Ziglar filed.|
|Nov 25 2016||Brief amici curiae of Former U.S. Attorneys General William P. Barr, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 1 2016||Application (16A546) of respondents to file a consolidated brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Ginsburg. VIDED.|
|Dec 2 2016||Application (16A546) granted by Justice Ginsburg to file a consolidated brief of respondents on the merits is excess of the word limit. VIDED.|
|Dec 5 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, January 18, 2017. VIDED|
|Dec 7 2016||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.|
|Dec 12 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Dec 12 2016||Motion of petitioners to enlarge the time for oral argument and for divided argument filed. VIDED.|
|Dec 19 2016||Brief of respondents Ahmer Iqbal Abbasi, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 20 2016||Brief amici curiae of Professors of Civil Procedure filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth Lawyers Association filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 22 2016||Brief amici curiae of Medical and Other Scientific and Health-Related Professionals filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2016||Brief amici curiae of Immigration Detention Advocacy Organizations filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 23 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The American Association for Justice filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 27 2016||Brief amici curiae of Former Correctional Officials filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 27 2016||Brief amici curiae of The American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 27 2016||Brief amici curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 27 2016||Brief amici curiae of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Dec 27 2016||Brief amici curiae of Karen Korematsu, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jan 6 2017||The motion of petitioners for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument is granted in part and denied in part, and the time is divided as follows: 20 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General on behalf of petitioners in Nos. 15-1358 and 15-1359, 10 minutes for petitioners in No. 15-1363, and 30 minutes for respondents. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion. VIDED.|
|Jan 11 2017||Reply of petitioner James W. Ziglar filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 18 2017||Argued. For petitioners in 15-1358 and 15-1359: Ian H. Gershengorn, Acting Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For petitioners in 15-1363: Jeffrey A. Lamken, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Rachel Meeropol, New York, N. Y. VIDED.|
|Jun 19 2017||Adjudged to be REVERSED IN PART and VACATED and REMANDED IN PART. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, III, IV-A, and V, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Part IV-B, in which Roberts, C. J., and Alito, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases. VIDED.|
|Jul 21 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
The Supreme Court has rescinded its COVID-related orders related to filing, but no word on resuming in-person oral arguments in October.
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.