Skip to content
Project Curia
Supreme Court decisions
No. 24-275Jun 12, 2025LawReversed

The question

Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening under 28 U.S.C. 2107(c) must file a second notice of appeal after reopening is granted.

Parrish v. United States

What the Court decided

Reversed. A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original deadline but before the court grants reopening does not need to file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted. The Fourth Circuit had held that Parrish's failure to file a new notice within the reopened period deprived it of jurisdiction, and the Court rejected that ruling.

How the justices split

8-1
In favor 8Against 1
Sotomayor
Roberts
Alito
Kagan
Kavanaugh
Barrett
Jackson
Thomas
Gorsuch

The Court's opinion

Sotomayor, joined by Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett

A notice of appeal filed before reopening is granted is merely early, not late, and under the longstanding common-law relation-forward rule it relates forward to the date the court grants reopening. Section 2107(c) gives no indication that Congress meant to terminate that rule, so a second notice after reopening is not required.

Concurring in the judgment

Jackson, joined by Thomas

Agreed with the outcome that Parrish's original notice of appeal sufficed but did not join the reasoning of the Court's opinion.

Dissenting

Gorsuch, writing alone

Disagreed with the Court's conclusion that the premature notice of appeal relates forward and satisfies the reopened appeal period requirement.

How we know · 5 sourced claims
  • The Court held that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original deadline but before reopening is granted need not file a second notice after reopening.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • The original notice of appeal relates forward to the date reopening is granted.

    Source: syllabus, Held

  • Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Thomas.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

  • Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

    Source: syllabus, lineup

Read the opinion on supremecourt.gov