TagSCOTUS

Tag for anything related to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS accepts cases for 2021-2022 term

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on Jan. 14 accepted five cases for argument during the 2021-2022 term:

As of this writing, the court has agreed to hear 64 cases during the term. Four cases were dismissed, and one case was removed from the argument calendar. Sixteen cases have not yet been scheduled for argument.

To date, the court has issued decisions in six cases. Two cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2020, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,062 cases, averaging between 70 and 90 cases per year.

Additional reading:



SCOTUS concludes January sitting with arguments in four cases

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is hearing oral arguments in four cases during the week of Jan. 18, the second and final week of its January argument sitting for the 2021-2022 term.

The court is hearing arguments in person, though the court remains closed to the public in accordance with its policies related to the COVID-19 pandemic. SCOTUS is providing a live stream of the oral arguments on its website.

Jan. 18

Jan. 19

The court will next hear oral arguments during its February sitting, which is scheduled to begin Feb. 22.

To date, the court has agreed to hear 64 cases during its current term. Four cases were dismissed, and one case was removed from the argument calendar. Sixteen cases have not yet been scheduled for argument.

Additional reading:



SCOTUS accepts three cases for argument on Jan. 10

Image of the front of the United States Supreme Court building

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) accepted three additional cases for argument during its 2021-2022 term on Jan. 10:

  1. United States v. Washington
  2. Kemp v. United States
  3. Siegel v. Fitzgerald

United States v. Washington concerns state workers’ compensation laws and intergovernmental immunity. The question presented to the court in Washington is: “Whether a state workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to federal contract workers who perform services at a specified federal facility is barred by principles of intergovernmental immunity, or is instead authorized by 40 U.S.C. 3172(a), which permits the application of state workers’ compensation laws to federal facilities ‘in the same way and to the same extent as if the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.’” Washington originated from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Kemp v. United States concerns the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure governing court procedures in civil cases. The court will consider the following question: “Whether Rule 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s error of law.” Kemp came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.

Siegel v. Fitzgerald concerns the constitutionality of a law imposing different fees on Chapter 11 debtors based on the district in which the bankruptcy is filed. The question presented in Siegel asks: “Whether the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act violates the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause by increasing quarterly fees solely in U.S. Trustee districts.” Siegel came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

The court had agreed to hear 59 cases during its 2021-2022 term as of Jan. 10. Four cases were dismissed, and one case was removed from the argument calendar. Eleven cases had not yet been scheduled for argument.

Additional reading:



SCOTUS begins January argument session

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) began its latest sitting of the 2021-2022 term on Jan. 10. The court is hearing arguments in person and providing audio livestreams of arguments.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is participating remotely from her office as a precaution related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This week, SCOTUS will hear arguments in four cases. Click the links below to learn more about these cases:

Jan. 10

  1. Gallardo v. Marstiller concerns tort claims and state Medicaid program reimbursement.

Jan. 11

  1. Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez and Garland v. Gonzalez concern non-citizens’ right to a bond hearing in immigration detention.

Jan. 12

  1. Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue concerns the time limit to file petitions with the U.S. Tax Court to review Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determinations.

Next week, SCOTUS will hear arguments in four cases.

To date, the court has agreed to hear 59 cases this term. Four cases were dismissed, and one case was removed from the argument calendar. Eleven cases have not yet been scheduled for argument.

Additional reading:



SCOTUS to hear arguments in COVID vaccine-related emergency appeals on Jan. 7

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) scheduled oral arguments in and deferred decisions on emergency appeals related to two of the Biden administration’s COVID vaccination policies. This is a departure from the court’s typical procedure for resolving emergency appeals—known colloquially as the court’s shadow docket—where the court issues an order without hearing oral arguments. The arguments have been set for Jan. 7. The central question in the cases is whether the government can enforce the vaccine policies while litigation over the policies’ constitutionality continues in lower courts.

The first policy at issue is the administration’s COVID vaccine mandate for businesses with more than 100 employees, which requires qualifying businesses to either mandate and verify all its employees are vaccinated or test all unvaccinated employees for COVID weekly and require mask-wearing in the workplace. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reinstated the mandate nationwide, several parties applied to the Supreme Court to block the 6th Circuit’s ruling. SCOTUS accepted two of these cases and will hear arguments in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Department of Labor and Ohio v. Department of Labor.

The second policy at issue is the rule that health care workers who participate in federal Medicare and Medicaid programs be fully vaccinated. The Biden administration came to the court asking it to allow enforcement of the rule after lower courts blocked it in approximately half of the states. The court will hear oral arguments on this policy in Biden v. Missouri and Becerra v. Louisiana.

Additional reading:



SCOTUS releases February argument calendar

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) released its February argument calendar for the 2021-2022 term on Dec. 17. The court scheduled seven cases for arguments on the merits between Feb. 22 and March 2, including two cases consolidated for one hour of oral argument.

Arguments will be conducted in person, although the court remains closed to the public, according to its COVID-19 safety protocols. Argument audio will be streamed live to the public. The audio files and argument transcripts for cases will be posted on the Court’s website following oral argument each day.

Click the links below to learn more about the cases:

Feb. 22

  1. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
  2. Denezpi v. United States

Feb. 23

  1. Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California

Feb. 28

  1. West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (Consolidated with North American Coal Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. Environmental Protection Agency, and North Dakota v. Environmental Protection Agency)

March 1

  1. Ruan v. United States (Consolidated with Kahn v. United States)
  2. Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita, Inc.

March 2

  1. Egbert v. Boule

To date, the court has granted review in 56 cases during the term. Four cases were dismissed, and one case was removed from the argument calendar. Eight cases have not yet been scheduled for argument.

Additional reading:



Supreme Court issued rulings in two Texas abortion cases

On December 10, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States issued rulings in a pair of cases related to Texas’ S.B. 8. S.B. 8 restricted abortion procedures after six weeks of pregnancy and authorized private civil right of action related to violations of the law. One case, United States v. Texas, questioned whether the federal government had standing to sue to block enforcement of S.B. 8. The other, Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, questioned who providers could sue to prevent enforcement of the law.

The court issued a per curiam decision in United States v. Texas. The court dismissed the case as improvidently granted and denied the federal government’s request to vacate a stay against a lower court injunction. Three lower court rulings were made prior to the Supreme Court hearing this case.

In Whole Women’s Health v. Jackson, the court ruled 8-1 that abortion providers may file suit in federal court against certain Texas executive officials to prevent them from enforcing provisions of S.B. 8 against abortion providers. It further held by a 5-4 vote that the abortion providers cannot bring suit against state judicial officials to prevent private lawsuits from being tried. Two lower court rulings were made prior to the Supreme Court hearing this case.

Additional reading:



SCOTUS accepts three new cases for 2021-2022 term

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) accepted three cases for argument during the 2021-2022 term on Dec. 10:

  1. Golan v. Saada, originating from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, concerns international child custody.
  2. Southwest Airlines v. Saxon, on an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, concerns the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act.
  3. ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. (consolidated with AlixPartners, LLC v. Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States), originating from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, concerns international arbitration proceedings.

The court also released opinions in two cases on Friday: United States v. Texas and Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson.

As of this writing, the court has agreed to hear 53 cases during the term. Four cases were dismissed, and one case was removed from the argument calendar. Twelve cases have not yet been scheduled for argument.

To date, the court has issued decisions in three cases. Two cases were decided without argument. Between 2007 and 2020, SCOTUS released opinions in 1,062 cases, averaging between 70 and 90 cases per year.

Additional reading:



SCOTUS issues two opinions on Dec. 10

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued opinions on Dec. 10 in two cases concerning Texas Senate Bill 8 (S.B. 8). To date, the court has issued decisions in five cases during the 2021-2022 term. Two of those cases were decided without argument.

United States v. Texas concerned whether the federal government had the right to challenge S.B. 8 in federal court. In a two-sentence per curiam opinion, the court held that the “writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted. The application to vacate stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court is denied.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented from this decision. A per curiam opinion is unsigned and delivered by the court as a whole.

In its opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, SCOTUS affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas that denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the case against them and remanded the case for further proceedings. SCOTUS found that pre-enforcement actions—lawsuits filed before S.B. 8 had been enforced—can proceed against certain defendants but not others. 

In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court held that abortion providers may file suit in federal court against state licensing officials to prevent them from enforcing the provisions of S.B. 8 under an exception to the sovereign immunity doctrine established in Ex parte Young (1908). Justice Clarence Thomas was the sole dissenting justice to this part of the opinion. The court further ruled by a vote of 5-4 that the abortion providers cannot file suit against state judges and clerks to block them from trying private lawsuits brought in accordance with S.B. 8. On this vote, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett were in the majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented. The court noted that it was not ruling on the constitutionality of S.B. 8 itself.

As of Dec. 10, the court had agreed to hear 53 cases during the current term. Four cases were dismissed, and one case was removed from the argument calendar. Twelve cases have not yet been scheduled for argument.

Additional reading:



SCOTUS releases January argument calendar

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) on Nov. 17 released the January argument calendar for the 2021-2022 term, scheduling eight cases for argument. The court will hear eight hours of oral argument between Jan. 10 and 19. 

Click the links below to learn more about the cases:

Jan. 10

  1. Gallardo v. Marstiller concerns tort claims and state Medicaid program reimbursement.

Jan. 11

  1. Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez concerns the right of non-citizens in immigration detention to a bond hearing.
  2. Garland v. Gonzalez concerns the right of non-citizens in immigration detention to a bond hearing and the jurisdiction of federal courts to grant classwide injunctive relief in such cases.

Jan. 12

  1. Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue concerns the time limit to file petitions with the United States Tax Court to review Internal Revenue Service (IRS) determinations.

Jan. 18

  1. Shurtleff v. City of Boston concerns religion, government speech, and whether a city flagpole is a public forum.
  2. Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation concerns Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act (2016) claims.

Jan. 19

  1. Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate concerns federal election law and political campaign finance rules and spending limits.
  2. Concepcion v. United States concerns sentencing requirements and reductions for drug offenses under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and the First Step Act.

To date, the court has agreed to hear 49 cases during its 2021-2022 term. Four cases were dismissed and one case was removed from the argument calendar. Eight cases have not yet been scheduled for argument.

Additional reading: