Parrish v. United States
In brief
A party whose appeal time is reopened may use a notice filed before reopening rather than filing a second one.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 8-1 · June 12, 2025 · Opinion by Justice Sotomayor
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court held that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original deadline but before a court formally grants a request to reopen the appeal period does not need to file a second notice, as the premature notice relates forward to the date of reopening.
- Who it affects
- People who miss an appeal deadline because they did not receive timely notice of a judgment can rely on an earlier notice once reopening is granted.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The case concerns the rules for preserving an appeal after the ordinary deadline has passed and a court reopens the time to appeal.
Question presented
Must a party who files a notice of appeal during the period between when their original appeal deadline expired and when the court reopens their time to appeal file a second notice after the reopening is granted?
What the Court decided
Holding
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. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted. 74 F. 4th 160, reversed and remanded.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Dissenting · 1disagreed with the result
- Gorsuchwrote the dissent
From the opinions
“The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.”
“Respectfully, I would have dismissed this case as improvidently granted.”
What's next
The case returns to the lower court for further proceedings. Lower courts must treat a qualifying premature notice of appeal as effective when reopening is granted.
Why it matters
For example, a person whose late notice is treated as a request to reopen need not submit the same notice again.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 7 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Status changed from unknown to unknown
Status changed from unknown to unknown
Opinion added: Parrish
Opinion added: opinion
Audio Recording added: Oral Arguments - Parrish
Status changed from unknown to unknown
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Parrish v. United States?
- The Court said Parrish did not need a second notice of appeal after reopening. His earlier notice became effective when reopening was granted.
- Who won Parrish v. United States?
- Parrish won. The Court reversed and remanded the Fourth Circuit's decision.
- What does Parrish v. United States mean for late filers?
- A person who files before reopening may not need to file again afterward. This applies when a court grants reopening of the appeal period.
- Is the rule on premature appeal notices still the law after Parrish v. United States?
- Yes. A notice filed after the ordinary deadline but before reopening relates forward when reopening is granted.
- What happens next in Parrish v. United States?
- The lower court will continue the case after the Supreme Court's reversal and remand. It must apply the Court's rule on Parrish's notice of appeal.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.