This morning, the Court granted four petitions; two of those were consolidated for one hour of oral argument.  (The Court also called for the views of the Solicitor General in three cases, two of which present similar issues. Details on today’s granted cases and CVSGs will shortly follow the jump.)  These grants are in addition to Friday’s orders (which Lyle covered last week), in which the Court agreed to review the constitutionality of three redistricting plans drawn up by a federal court for the Texas legislature and the state’s delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Court issued two unanimous opinions, one in an argued case.  Justice Kagan wrote the opinion in Judulang v. Holder, holding that the policy used by the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine whether a resident alien is eligible to ask the Attorney General for relief from deportation under a provision of the immigration laws that has been repealed is “arbi­trary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5  U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).

In addition, the Court issued a per curiam opinion in Hardy v. Cross in which it summarily reversed a decision of the Seventh Circuit in a habeas corpus case.  The Justices first considered the case at their September 26 Conference, and the case had been relisted multiple times since then.  The Court held that the lower court’s ruling overturning a decision of an Illinois state court was inconsistent with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which “imposes a highly def­erential standard for evaluating state-court rulings and demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.”

Today’s granted cases:

Arizona v. United States (Granted )

Docket: 11-182
Issue(s): Whether federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement and impliedly preempt four provisions of S.B. 1070 on their face. (Kagan, J., recused.)

Certiorari stage documents:

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak (Granted )

Docket: 11-246
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Quiet Title Act and its reservation of the United States' sovereign immunity in suits involving "trust or restricted Indian lands" apply to all suits concerning land in which the United States "claims an interest," 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), or whether they apply only when the plaintiff claims title to the land; and (2) whether prudential standing to sue under federal law can be based on either (i) the plaintiff's ability to "police" an agency's compliance with the law or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based.

Certiorari stage documents:

Salazar v. Patchak (Granted )

Docket: 11-247
Issue(s): (1) Whether 5 U.S.C. § 702 waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from a suit challenging its title to lands that it holds in trust for an Indian Tribe; and (2) whether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has prudential standing to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act.

Certiorari stage documents:

RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank (Granted )

Docket: 11-166
Issue(s): Whether a debtor may pursue a Chapter 11 plan that proposes to sell assets free of liens without allowing the secured creditor to credit bid, but instead providing it with the indubitable equivalent of its claim under Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Certiorari stage documents:

The views of the Solicitor General have been called for in:

 

Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (Granted )

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondent in this case.
Docket: 11-347
Issue(s): Whether the Ninth Circuit should have deferred to the Environmental Protection Agency’s longstanding position that channeled runoff from forest roads does not require a permit, and erred when it mandated that EPA regulate such runoff as industrial stormwater subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Breyer, J., recused.)

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Corboy v. Louie

Docket: 11-336
Issue(s): (1) Whether petitioners have standing to seek a refund of their own taxes; and (2) whether the Equal Protection Clause precludes a state or municipality from creating tax exemptions that are available only to members of a certain race.

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (Granted )

Note: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, serves as counsel to the respondent in this case.
Docket: 11-338
Issue(s): (1) Whether a citizen may bypass judicial review of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting rule under 33 U.S.C. § 1369, and may instead challenge the validity of the rule in a citizen suit to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA); and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that stormwater from logging roads is industrial stormwater under the rules of the CWA and the Environmental Protection Agency, even though EPA has determined that it is not industrial stormwater? (Breyer, J. recused)

Certiorari stage documents:

CVSG Information:

Posted in Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Kali Borkoski, Details on today’s orders and opinions, SCOTUSblog (Dec. 12, 2011, 11:00 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/12/details-on-todays-orders-and-opinions-2/