October Term 2024 · Docket 24-275
Does a premature notice of appeal become valid when the appeal period reopens?
The dispute centers on whether a notice of appeal filed before the appeal period begins takes effect when that period later reopens.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion 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
Ms. Rice argued that premature notices of appeal take effect when the appeal clock starts.
Ms. Brown argued that Section 2107 does not preclude premature notices of appeal.
Mr. Huston argued that Section 2107(c) clearly requires timely filing of notices of appeal.
Justice Jackson questioned whether the notice of appeal was actually premature in this context.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-35 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 37-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-27
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the validity of a notice of appeal filed before the appeal period began. the side that brought the case argues the notice ripens when the period reopens. The government argues the notice is invalid because it was premature.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-35 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-35
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 21, 2025.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 37-51
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the Court to validate the premature notice of appeal.
The government wants the Court to invalidate the premature notice of appeal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-35 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-35
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues Section 2107 does not preclude premature notices of appeal.
The government argues Section 2107(c) clearly requires timely filing of notices of appeal.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-35 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-35
What the justices asked
Justice Jackson questioned why the court of appeals did not docket the appeal immediately.
Justice Kavanaugh asked how the background principle coexists with specific appellate rules.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 37-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-27
Why it matters
This case determines the procedural validity of early-filed notices of appeal. It clarifies the interaction between statutory deadlines and appellate practice. The outcome affects how courts manage reopened appeal periods.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-35 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-35
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 19-39 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-39 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 11-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 11-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 31-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 31-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 21-41 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 21-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 37-51 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 37-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-37 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 55-11 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 55-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-27
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-35 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 19-29 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 19-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 23-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 23-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 40, lines 31-31 — Transcript, file page 40, lines 31-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 65, lines 53-35 — Transcript, file page 65, lines 53-35
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.