Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General v. Edin Donelsy Madrid-Mancia

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 21-2291 · judgment July 3, 2023


GVR'd · June 24, 2024
Pre-decision estimate: 26% cert probability (95% interval 18%–37%)

Before the decision, about 6.4× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a federal-government petitioner, counsel who has won certiorari before, and a Third Circuit decision below.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Elizabeth B. Prelogar
Solicitor General

For respondent
Aleksandra N. Gontaryuk
AG Law Firm

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Jul 26 2024
    Judgment Issued.
  2. Jun 24 2024
    Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U. S. ___ (2024).
  3. Jun 17 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2024.
  4. Jun 07 2024
    Reply of petitioner Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General filed. (Distributed)
  5. May 28 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2024.
  6. May 13 2024
    Brief of respondent Edin Donelsy Madrid-Mancia in opposition filed.
  7. Apr 15 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 13, 2024. See Rule 30.1.
  8. Apr 12 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 12, 2024 to May 12, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
  9. Mar 14 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 12, 2024.
  10. Mar 13 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 12, 2024 to April 12, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
  11. Jan 11 2024
    Response Requested. (Due February 12, 2024)
  12. Jan 10 2024
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
  13. Nov 20 2023
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2023)
  14. Nov 20 2023
    Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.