October Term 2014 · Docket 14-185

Can a court review a board's denial of a deadline extension?

The parties dispute whether a federal court can review a board's decision to deny a deadline extension.

Official caption
Mata v. Lynch
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.

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 the Court should take the short path to resolve the case.

    Mr. Yang argued the lower court committed a basic error in administrative law.

    Mr. Peterson offered a brief opening statement to the Court.

    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

Mata seeks a court review of a board's denial of a deadline extension. Lynch argues the court lacks jurisdiction to review that specific denial.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 29, 2015.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Mata wants the Supreme Court to allow review of the board's extension denial.

Lynch wants the Supreme Court to confirm the lower court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Mata argues the lower court made a fundamental administrative law error by recharacterizing the legal question.

Lynch argues the board's denial was a discretionary action that courts cannot review.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked why the Fifth Circuit treated the extension denial as a sua sponte action.

Justice Ginsburg asked how the Court can clarify jurisdiction if the statute does not allow equitable tolling.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the scope of judicial review over agency deadline extensions. It determines whether courts can correct legal errors in agency scheduling decisions. The outcome shapes the balance between agency discretion and judicial oversight.

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