Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20-1775 | 9th Cir. | Feb 23, 2022 | Jun 15, 2022 | N/A | Per Curiam | OT 2021 |
Holding: The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Judgment: Dismissed in a per curiam opinion on June 15, 2022. Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch joined.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- An important week for immigration law (SCOTUStalk, June 21, 2022)
- Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, June 15 (complete) (Angie Gou, June 15, 2022)
- Justices decline to reach merits of conservative states attempt to revive public charge rule (Amy Howe, June 15, 2022)
- Two more cases involving religious exercise claims (John Elwood, March 16, 2022)
- Justices probe states effort to defend Trump immigration rule after Biden stopped defending it in court (Amy Howe, February 24, 2022)
- Justices will hear dispute from GOP-led states over Bidens refusal to defend legality of Trump-era immigration rule (Amy Howe, February 23, 2022)
- Climate change and immigration policies headline February argument calendar (Amy Howe, December 18, 2021)
- Justices agree to review EPAs authority to regulate greenhouse gases (Amy Howe, October 29, 2021)
- No new relists, but you should read anyway (John Elwood, October 27, 2021)
- Foreign intelligence surveillance and immigration (John Elwood, October 14, 2021)
- Free exercise, greenhouse-gas regulation, and a slew of other relists from the long conference (John Elwood, October 5, 2021)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 06/18/2021 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 23, 2021) |
| 07/09/2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 23, 2021 to August 23, 2021, submitted to The Clerk. |
| 07/12/2021 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 23, 2021, for all respondents. |
| 08/23/2021 | Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. |
| 08/23/2021 | Brief of respondents State of California et al. in opposition filed. |
| 08/23/2021 | Brief of respondents City and County of San Francisco, et al. in opposition filed. |
| 08/23/2021 | Brief of respondents Washington et al. in opposition filed. (Distributed) |
| 09/08/2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021. |
| 09/08/2021 | Reply of petitioners Arizona, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 10/04/2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/8/2021. |
| 10/12/2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/15/2021. |
| 10/25/2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/29/2021. |
| 10/29/2021 | Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition. |
| 12/13/2021 | Brief of petitioners Arizona, et al. filed. |
| 12/13/2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of cost filed) |
| 12/14/2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Arizona, et al. |
| 12/17/2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, February 23, 2022. |
| 12/17/2021 | Brief amicus curiae of America First Legal Foundation filed. |
| 12/20/2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Immigration Reform Law Institute filed. |
| 12/20/2021 | Brief amici curiae of Ohio, et al. filed. |
| 12/21/2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit. |
| 12/21/2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer. |
| 12/21/2021 | The record from the U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Washington (Richland) is electronic and located on Pacer. |
| 01/12/2022 | Brief of respondents City and County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara filed. |
| 01/12/2022 | Brief of State Respondents filed. |
| 01/12/2022 | Brief of Federal Respondents filed. |
| 01/18/2022 | CIRCULATED |
| 01/19/2022 | Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General. |
| 01/24/2022 | Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General GRANTED. |
| 02/11/2022 | Reply of petitioner Arizona, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| 02/17/2022 | Letter of the Solicitor General updating on status of availability of NPRM text. (Distributed) |
| 02/23/2022 | Argued. For petitioners: Mark Brnovich, Attorney General, Phoenix, Ariz. For federal respondents: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For state respondents: Helen H. Hong, Deputy Solicitor General, San Diego, Cal. |
| 06/15/2022 | Writ of certiorari DISMISSED as improvidently granted. Opinion per curiam. Roberts, C. J., with whom Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, JJ., join, concurring. |
| 07/18/2022 | JUDGMENT ISSUED |