Arjune v. Shanahan
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:15-cv-01551
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Arjune v. Shanahan, Judge Gorenstein ordered the parties to report the case’s status after an appeals-court remand concerning Supreme Court decisions.
The parties were required to provide the court with a status statement and discuss the effect of the Supreme Court decisions on the petitioner’s case.
What happened
In Arjune v. Shanahan, the court had previously granted the petitioner’s petition challenging his detention and ordered the Government to provide him with a bond hearing. The Government appealed that ruling.
The Second Circuit sent the case back for further consideration in light of two Supreme Court decisions, Nielsen v. Preap and Jennings v. Rodriguez. The current order did not decide the petition again or determine the effect of those decisions.
Judge Gorenstein ordered the parties to provide, by May 29, 2020, a statement about the case’s status and to discuss how the Supreme Court decisions affect the petitioner’s case.
The detailed version
- Arjune v. Shanahan · No. 1:15-cv-01551
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- May 8, 2020
Background
On April 7, 2015, the court granted the petitioner’s petition challenging his detention and ordered the Government to provide him with a bond hearing. The Government filed a notice of appeal on June 29, 2015.
The Second Circuit later issued a mandate—a formal instruction returning the case to the district court—that vacated the earlier ruling and sent the case back for further consideration. The appeals court directed the district court to consider the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nielsen v. Preap and Jennings v. Rodriguez.
Ruling
The court ordered the parties to submit, no later than May 29, 2020, a statement explaining the status of the case and discussing how the two Supreme Court decisions affect the petitioner’s case. This order did not itself decide the petition’s merits or state whether a bond hearing was ultimately required.
Disposition
The court entered a case-status reporting order. The opinion does not state any additional disposition of the petition.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.