U.S. Supreme Court releases November argument calendar

The U.S. Supreme Court released its November argument calendar for the 2019-2020 term. The court will hear 10 hours of oral argument in 12 cases between November 4 and November 13.
As of June 28, 2019, the court had agreed to hear 44 cases in the upcoming term.
November 4
  • Barton v. Barr asks whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “inadmissible” under a federal law that ends the accrual of continuous residence if the permanent resident commits a crime that would make them inadmissible to the U.S.
  • Kansas v. Glover asks whether, for investigative purposes under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for a law enforcement officer to assume that a vehicle’s registered owner is the one driving the vehicle without any other information.
November 5
  • CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd. asks whether under federal maritime law a safe berth clause in a voyage charter contract is a guarantee of a ship’s safety, as the 3rd Circuit and the 2nd Circuit have held, or a duty of due diligence, as the 5th Circuit has held.
  • Allen v. Cooper asks whether Congress had the authority to repeal states’ immunity from legal challenges under the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act.
November 6
  • County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund asks whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit to discharge waste when pollutants originate from a point source (an area where pollutants may be discharged) but are brought by navigable waters to a non-point source, such as groundwater.
  • Retirement Plan Committee of IBM v. Jander asks whether a pleading standard established by U.S. Supreme Court precedent can be satisfied by general allegations that the harm of undisclosed fraud increases over time.
November 12
  • Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California asks (1) whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is judicially reviewable and (2) whether the decision was lawful. This case is consolidated with Trump v. NAACP and McAleenan v. Vidal.
  • Hernandez v. Mesa asks whether courts can and should recognize a damages claim against a law enforcement officer when plaintiffs allege the officer violated Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
November 13
  • Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media asks whether a plaintiff bringing a claim of race discrimination is required to prove the defendant would have acted differently if not for the plaintiff’s race.
  • Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC asks whether an order denying a motion to lift an automatic stay in bankruptcy is a final order that can be appealed.
Additional reading: