The SCOTUS Thread

[HARK!]

The Supreme Court is expected to start handing down rulings on 33 outstanding cases Monday.

The high court normally starts to release rulings on Mondays following Memorial Day and finishes before July Fourth.

Supreme Court rulings loom on New York gun carrying permit case, abortion access and more

Here is a good place to post the rulings as they're released.

 

[HARK!]

Supreme Court has 33 opinions remaining in one-month sprint to end controversial term

CNN on MSN.com|1 day ago


Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, June 6 (complete) - SCOTUSblog

 

[HARK!]

1.)

Supreme Court Rejects Forced Arbitration for Southwest Airlines Baggage Workers
Unanimous opinion goes against trend of rulings making it easier for businesses to avoid class-action lawsuits brought by workers

Supreme Court Rejects Forced Arbitration for Southwest Airlines Baggage workers

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon.

 

[HARK!]

2.)

U.S. Supreme Court sides with Florida in dispute on recouping Medicaid money
The ruling was in a case where a Lee County girl was hit and seriously injured by a truck after getting off a school bus.

U.S. Supreme Court sides with Florida in dispute on recouping Medicaid money

Gallardo v. Marstiller

 

[HARK!]

3.)

U.S. Supreme Court finds 2017 bankruptcy fee increase was unconstitutional

U.S. Supreme Court finds 2017 bankruptcy fee increase was unconstitutional

Siegel v. Fitzgerald

 

[HARK!]

4.)

Justices rule double-dealing migrant smuggler can’t sue Border Patrol agent

A man who helped smuggle illegal immigrants across the Canadian border, but also reported some of them to the U.S. Border Patrol, cannot sue an agent for personal damages under claims his constitutional rights were violated, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

Justices rule double-dealing migrant smuggler can’t sue Border Patrol agent

Egbert v. Boule - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

5.)

The case: Dexter Kemp was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for drug and firearms offenses and was sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. He sought to vacate his sentence on the basis of several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and his request was denied.

Kemp v. United States

Kemp v. United States - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

6.)

The case: The plaintiffs in this case are non-U.S. citizens subject to a removal order who have been in immigration detention for six or more months. The detainees brought suit against the U.S. government challenging their continued detainment without a bond hearing. The federal district courts found for the detainees, holding that the 9th Circuit's ruling in Diouf v. Napolitano required that detainees held for six months or more are entitled to a bond hearing before an immigration judge.

Garland v. Gonzalez

Garland v. Gonzalez - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

7.)

The case: Mexican citizen Antonio Arteaga-Martinez was under an order of removal and was in detention while his application to remain in the U.S. was being processed. He filed a petition for a habeas corpus questioning the constitutionality of his continued detention while his application was pending.

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

8.)

The issue: The case involves the Court of Indian Offenses’ jurisdiction, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, which prohibits an individual from being prosecuted for the same crime twice, and the dual-sovereignty doctrine.

Denezpi v. United States

Supreme Court: Double jeopardy doesn’t apply for man convicted in federal court after tribal trial

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled against an American Indian who claimed the feds couldn’t prosecute him for sex abuse after he had already pleaded guilty to assault and battery in tribal court.

Merle Denezpi claimed the dual punishment violated the Constitution’s protection against double jeopardy, where someone can’t be prosecuted twice for the same crime.


But in a 6-3 ruling, the high court said Denezpi was charged with separate crimes — assault and battery in the Court of Indian Offenses and sex abuse under the feds’ Major Crime Act in federal court.

Supreme Court: Double jeopardy doesn’t apply for man convicted in federal court after tribal trial

Denezpi v. United States - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

9.)

The issue: The consolidated cases concern arbitration proceedings. Specifically, U.S. district courts' authority to compel parties to produce evidentiary details in private arbitration for foreign or international tribunals.

https://ballotpedia.org/ZF_Automotive_US,_Inc._v._Luxshare,_Ltd.

ZF Automotive U. S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

10.)

The case: Angie Moriana brought a representative action—an action in which a plaintiff brings a lawsuit on behalf of others—against Viking River Cruises, Inc. (Viking) for violations of California labor code. Viking moved to

'[T]he ruling by a judge that all or a portion (one or more of the causes of action) of the plaintiff's lawsuit is terminated (thrown out) at that point without further evidence or testimony.'<ref>Law.com, 'Dismiss,' accessed April 1, 2021</ref>

">dismiss the action, arguing that an Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution method 'with one or more persons hearing a dispute and rendering a binding decision. An agreement to arbitrate disputes can be made before or after a specific dispute arises. Since the parties can agree to the rules of arbitration (e.g., selecting qualified arbitrators with knowledge of the issues), they can save costs as compared to litigation.'<ref>Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, 'Arbitration,' accessed December 13, 2021</ref>

">arbitration agreement Moriana had signed as a condition of her employment required that all employment disputes be arbitrated. The trial court denied Viking's motion citing the California Supreme Court's precedent in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014), finding arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring representative actions under California law unenforceable. After unsuccessful appeals to the California appellate courts, Viking appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on the theory that the California Supreme Court's holding in Iskanian was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court's 2018 decision in EPIC Systems Corp. v. Lewis. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

11.)

The case: Narkis Aliza Golan took her minor child from Italy to the United States without the father's permission. The father, Isacco Jacky Saada, filed suit in U.S. district court to have the child returned to Italy. Under international law, the court found that Italy was the country of the child's habitual residence, meaning the country in which the child regularly lived, but that Saada's abuse of Golan had and could continue to expose the child to a "grave risk of psychological harm" and, therefore, the law did not require the child to be returned to Italy.[2] Second Circuit precedent, however, required the district court to further analyze whether any ameliorative measures could be imposed on Saada to eliminate the grave risk to the child, and after finding that such measures did exist, the district court held that the child must be returned to Italy. On Golan's first appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit

The action of an appellate court overturning a lower court's decision.

"reversed the district court's finding that the measures would eliminate to the grave risk to the child, but after the district court imposed new measures and again held that the child must be returned to Italy, the 2nd Circuit The action of an appellate court confirming a lower court's decision.

"affirmed the decision. Golan appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Golan v. Saada


Golan v. Saada - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

12.)

The issue: The case concerns the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act (1987), the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (1988), gaming regulation on tribal lands, and the sovereign authority of Native American tribal nations. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas



Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

13.)

The case: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reduced the reimbursement rate that the agency pays certain hospitals for treating Medicare patients. Hospitals sued, arguing that HHS interpreted the Medicare statute in an illegal way. The D.C. Circuit ruled that the decision to lower the reimbursement rate was based on a reasonable interpretation of the Medicare statute. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

American Hospital Association v. Becerra

American Hospital Association v. Becerra - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

14.)

The case: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied Kevin George's 1970s disability claim based on a regulation that did not require the agency to prove that his military service did not aggravate his condition. Decades later, a court ruled that the regulation was invalid because it violated the unambiguous text of the relevant statute. George sought to have the VA reconsider his claim following the court ruling, arguing that reliance on the faulty regulation constituted "clear and unmistakable error."[1] Click here to learn more about the case's background.

George v. McDonough

George v. McDonough - SCOTUS

The court dismissed Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco as improvidently granted.

Announcement of opinions for Wednesday, June 15 (complete) - SCOTUSblog

 

[essentialsaltes]

Depressingly predictable.

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs | CNN Politics

 

[Yttrium]

Depressingly predictable.

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs | CNN Politics

I'm gonna hafta agree with this decision. If the tuition vouchers can be used anywhere, then you can't really say that the government is promoting a religion when it's used for a religious school. If you deny the religious school the voucher, you can be seen as discriminating against the religion.

If the government specifically endorsed a religion's schools over others, then we would have a problem.

 

[HARK!]

Depressingly predictable.

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs | CNN Politics

15.)


HIGHLIGHTS

• The case: The Maine State Legislature created a tuition assistance program to pay for students to attend public or private schools inside or outside of the state, in order to ensure that school-age children receive a free public education. Private schools labeled as sectarian by the state were not approved for funding. In 2018, three sets of parents filed a complaint in U.S. district court against the state, alleging that the program requirement infringed on their First Amendment rights, including the free exercise of religion. The district court entered judgment in favor of the state. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit The action of an appellate court confirming a lower court's decision.
  
  ">affirmed the district court's ruling. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

• The issue: The case concerns public education funding and religious education, and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (2020).

The questions presented: "Does a state violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction?

Carson v. Makin



Carson v. Makin - SCOTUS

 

[HARK!]

16.)

The issue: The case concerns the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA), which prohibits group health plans from considering a plan participant’s eligibility when the individual has end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and from providing different benefits to these individuals than from other covered participants. The case also involves a

'A circuit split occurs when two or more circuits in the United States court of appeals reach opposite interpretations of federal law.'<ref>Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute, 'Circuit split,' accessed March 1, 2021</ref>

">circuit split over how much plans must reimburse their members for dialysis treatment costs. Click here to learn more about the case's background.

https://ballotpedia.org/Marietta_Memorial_Hospital_Employee_Health_Benefit_Plan_v._DaVita,_Inc.

Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita - SCOTUS