Have any certiorari petitions related to federal grant conditions and immigration law been filed at the Supreme Court since 2017, according to the official Supreme Court docket?
Executive summary
The official Supreme Court materials provided show multiple certiorari petitions and granted petitions on high-profile immigration questions since 2017—examples include cases about visa denials, the government’s “metering” policy, and states’ standing to challenge federal enforcement—but none of the specific Supreme Court docket documents supplied here identify a certiorari petition that is explicitly about federal grant conditions tied to immigration enforcement (e.g., conditional federal funding) since 2017 [1] [2] [3]. The reporting reviewed raises the possibility of related doctrinal disputes reaching the Court but does not, in these sources, document a cert petition focused on federal grant conditions [4] [5].
1. What the official Supreme Court docket materials provided actually show about immigration cert petitions
The supplied Supreme Court documents and opinion PDFs record that the Court has taken up and decided several immigration matters in recent terms—Muñoz (consular visa denial) was argued and decided after certiorari was granted (No. 23–334) and appears on the Court’s opinion pages [1], and the Court granted review in cases addressing the government’s “metering” policy and other enforcement questions referenced by CLINIC’s court-watch summaries [2]. Those are concrete entries in the Court’s docket and opinion releases contained in the packet of sources provided [4] [1].
2. The specific question: “certiorari petitions related to federal grant conditions” — what’s in the sources
The materials supplied do not include a Supreme Court docket entry or opinion that is plainly labeled as a certiorari petition focused on federal grant conditions (that is, lawsuits challenging or defending federal grants conditioned on state compliance with immigration enforcement) during the period since 2017. The closest snippets reference grants in different contexts—administrative or operational “grants” enabling agents to operate in a district—but these excerpts are from opinions about enforcement actions and injunctions, not about statutory grant-conditions forming the core of a cert petition in the docket materials provided [5] [4]. Therefore, based on the supplied official Court PDFs and summaries, there is no documented certiorari petition on that precise topic in these sources.
3. Notable related Supreme Court entries in the supplied reporting (but not the requested grant-condition topic)
The supplied sources document significant immigration-related certiorari activity: the Muñoz consular visa case (argued April 23, 2024; decided June 21, 2024) appears on the Court’s opinion pages [1], and summaries from CLINIC note the Court granted certiorari in Noem v. Al Otro Lado concerning the “metering” policy [2]. The Court’s decisions on states’ standing to challenge federal enforcement — United States v. Texas and related holdings that states lacked standing to challenge certain enforcement guidance — are also reflected in the legal summaries provided [3]. Those are explicit docket events in the provided materials, but they concern immigration enforcement doctrines and standing rather than conditional federal grant strings to states.
4. Why reporting and public debate can blur the lines between grant conditions and enforcement cases
Media and advocacy reporting often discuss the same high-level policy battle—how federal immigration priorities interact with state and local actors—so coverage of metering, standing, or enforcement guidelines can be conflated with debates about conditional federal grants; the provided opinion excerpts show the Court grappling with enforcement reach and remedies [5] [4], and external commentary (e.g., The Atlantic) critiques Court decisions expanding enforcement authority or limiting remedies [6]. Those thematic overlaps explain why public narratives may suggest grant-conditions litigation has reached the Court even when the specific docketed certiorari petitions in the supplied materials address different legal hooks [2] [6].
5. Bottom line and limitations of this reporting
According to the exact Supreme Court documents and related materials supplied here, there are documented certiorari petitions and grants on several immigration issues since 2017—including visa denials, metering, and states’ standing to sue the federal government [1] [2] [3]—but the sources provided do not show a certiorari petition at the Supreme Court since 2017 that is expressly about federal grant conditions tied to immigration law; if such petitions exist on the Court’s official docket, they are not contained in the supplied files and cannot be affirmed from these materials alone [4] [5].