October Term 2011 · Docket 10-694

Can a court apply new deportation rules to a past conviction?

the sides that brought the case seek retroactive relief. The government seeks to apply current law.

Official caption
Judulang v. Holder
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Fleming argued that the sides that brought the case deserve equal relief opportunities.

    Mr. Gannon argued that some comparability analysis is necessary.

    questions_asked_by_justices

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests whether new legal standards apply to old convictions.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 12, 2011.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the court to apply older, more lenient rules.

The government wants the court to apply current, stricter rules.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue that changing the law harms their rights.

The government argues that the law has not changed significantly.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked about reasonable expectations.

Justice Kagan asked if the law was previously confused.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines how courts treat past convictions under new laws.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON