Harding v. Decker
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:15-cv-03708
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Harding v. Decker, Judge Caproni ordered the parties to explain how Supreme Court decisions affect the remanded case.
Anthony Harding and the respondents—Kenneth Decker, Christopher Shanahan, Jeh Johnson, Loretta Lynch, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security—were directed to provide the status update.
What happened
Harding v. Decker concerns a petition by Anthony Harding. In 2015, the court granted his petition and ordered the government to provide him with a bond hearing.
The government appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later sent the case back for further consideration in light of Supreme Court decisions in Nielsen v. Preap and Jennings v. Rodriguez.
On April 30, 2020, Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the parties to provide a status update by May 22, 2020, including how those Supreme Court decisions affect Harding’s case.
The detailed version
- Harding v. Decker · No. 1:15-cv-03708
- Valerie Caproni
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
Anthony Harding filed a petition challenging his detention. On June 5, 2015, the court granted the petition and ordered the government to provide Harding with a bond hearing. The government filed a notice of appeal on August 7, 2015.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a mandate vacating and sending the case back to the district court for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nielsen v. Preap and Jennings v. Rodriguez. The order does not explain which part of the earlier ruling was vacated or what relief, if any, remained in effect.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered the parties to provide a status update no later than May 22, 2020. The update had to discuss how the Supreme Court’s decisions affect Harding’s case. This order required information from the parties; it did not state a new decision on the underlying petition.
Classification
This is a procedural order because the court directed a status update after an appellate remand rather than deciding the underlying legal issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.