October Term 2011 · Docket 10-1211
Does a 2004 law bar pre-2004 criminals from traveling?
the sides that brought the case seek to limit a new travel ban to future crimes. The government wants it to apply to past offenses.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the sides that brought the case cite Landgraf to argue against retroactive application.
The government relies on the same precedent but interprets it differently.
Justice Scalia noted the government ignored a relevant later case.
the sides that brought the case claim the new law attaches new consequences to old offenses.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-27
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a 2004 statute applies to crimes committed before its passage. the sides that brought the case argue the law lacks clear retroactive language. The government contends the ban applies to all prior convictions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 18, 2012.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want the Court to limit the travel ban to post-2004 crimes.
The government wants the Court to apply the ban to pre-2004 offenses.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the statute does not expressly mandate retroactive application.
The government argues the ban applies to all prior convictions regardless of date.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
What the justices asked
Justice Scalia asked why the rule would limit to foreign sovereign immunity.
Chief Justice Roberts questioned the logic of the expectations argument using a bank robbery example.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-27
Why it matters
This dispute determines whether past crimes trigger new travel restrictions. It defines the scope of statutory retroactivity for criminal penalties.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 9-13 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 9-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 21-35 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 21-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 33-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 33-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 17-31 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 17-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 45-3 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 45-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-3 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-3
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 15-17 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 15-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-27
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 7-25 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 7-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-17
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.