Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Parrish v. United States

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Parrish v. United States
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: April 21, 2025
Decided: June 12, 2025
Outcome
reversed and remanded
Vote
8-1
Majority
Sonia Sotomayor • Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Ketanji Brown Jackson • Clarence Thomas
Dissenting
Neil Gorsuch

Parrish v. United States is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 12, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 21, 2025.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned whether a party who submits a notice of appeal between the expiration of their original appeal deadline and the reopening of appellate filing must resubmit a duplicative, second notice after said reopening period begins. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "The Question Presented is whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened"[1]
  • The outcome: The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in an 8-1 ruling, holding that a "litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening." Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.[2] Click here for more information about the ruling.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Background

    Case summary

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Petitioner: Donte Parrish
      • Legal counsel: Amanda Kelly Rice (Jones Day)
    • Respondent: United States

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez

    “ While serving a 15-year federal prison sentence in 2017, Donte Parrish sued the United States for $5 million, claiming prison officials unlawfully held him in administrative segregation for three years. After the district court dismissed his case in March 2020, Parrish did not receive notice of the dismissal until June 2020 due to his transfer to state custody. He promptly filed a notice of appeal, which the appeals court treated as a request to reopen his appeal time. The district court granted this request in January 2021, giving him 14 days to file a new appeal, but Parrish missed this deadline and instead sent a supplemental brief to the appeals court a few days late. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.[4] ”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[1]

    Questions presented:
    “ The Question Presented is whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened[4] ”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[5]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[6]

    Outcome

    In a 8-1 opinion, the court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding that a "litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening."[2] Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:[2]

    “

    A notice of appeal filed after the original deadline but before reopening is late with respect to the original appeal period, but merely early with respect to the reopened one. Precedent teaches that a premature notice of appeal, if otherwise adequate, relates forward to the date of the order making the appeal possible. So a notice filed before reopening relates forward to the date reopening is granted, making a second notice unnecessary. Because the Fourth Circuit held otherwise, this Court now reverses. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.

    In her concurring opinion, Justice Jackson wrote:[2]

    “

    Because Parrish’s filing was effectively submitted in this manner, to me, the court that received it should have handled it in that way. Having construed Parrish’s notice of appeal as a motion to reopen, the court should have done what district courts do every day in our federal system when such a motion is granted: docket the proposed substantive filing—here, the notice of appeal. With the notice of appeal thus docketed, the court should have then transferred the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

    In his dissent, Justice Gorsuch wrote:[2]

    “

    Respectfully, I would have dismissed this case as improvidently granted. The Advisory Committee on Appellate Rules has already launched a study to consider whether changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) may be warranted to treat premature notices of appeal as relating forward to the first day of the 14-day window 28 U. S. C. §2107(c) prescribes. [4]

    		”
    —Justice Neil Gorsuch

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2024-2025

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 7, 2024. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[7]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-275 PARRISH V. UNITED STATES QP", January 17, 2025
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "24-275 PARRISH V. UNITED STATES", June 12, 2025
    3. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, ""No. 24-275accessed 45683
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued April 21, 2025
    6. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued April 21, 2025
    7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Parrish_v._United_States&oldid=10413905"