Ziglar v. Abbasi

Editor's Note :

Ziglar v. Abbasi

Opinion analysis: An extremely narrow Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling – Danielle D'Onfro

Argument analysis: Justices seem receptive to inmate’s juror-discrimination claims – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices sidestep decision on propriety of "cy pres" class-action settlements – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Mar. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of March 15, 2019

Consolidated with:

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-1358	2d Cir.	Jan 18, 2017 Tr.Aud.	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.

Immigration symposium: Immigration nuggets from October Term 2016 – What do they foreshadow? (John Eastman)
Immigration symposium: The future of immigration exceptionalism (David Rubenstein)
Immigration symposium: Prelude to a turning point (Charles Roth)
Immigration symposium: On immigration matters, the court’s watchwords are caution and deference (Richard Samp)
Opinion analysis: Justices throw out most claims against federal officials in post-September 11 case (Amy Howe)
A "view" from the courtroom: A clash of laws (Mark Walsh)
Argument analysis: Six-justice court sympathetic to government in detainee case (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Short-handed court to hear arguments in September 11 detainee case (Amy Howe)
Court adds three hours of oral argument to its merits docket (Amy Howe)
Petitions of the day (Kate Howard)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: An extremely narrow Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling – Danielle D'Onfro

Argument analysis: Justices seem receptive to inmate’s juror-discrimination claims – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices sidestep decision on propriety of "cy pres" class-action settlements – Ronald Mann
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in three cases: Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Nielsen v. Preap and Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinions in two cases: Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP and Frank v. Gaos.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices met for their March 22 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Frank v. Gaos This class action settlement case is remanded for the courts below to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
- Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP A business engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the limited purpose of enforcing security interests under 15 U. S. C. §1692f(6).
- Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.
- Nielsen v. Preap The judgments of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- that respondents, who are deportable for certain specified crimes, are not subject to 8 U. S. C. §1226(c)(2)’s mandatory-detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail -- are reversed, and the cases are remanded.
- Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. The Supreme Court of Washington’s judgment -- that the “right to travel” provision of the 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians pre-empts the state’s fuel tax as applied to Cougar Den’s importation of fuel by public highway for sale within the reservation -- is affirmed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 52

Cases decided 26

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	52
Cases decided	26
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)
Opinions

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)
Opinions

29
Conference