John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases.
Before clearing out of town for the summer recess, the Justices gathered for one final Conference today. Below are the relisted cases that they considered at that Conference. We’ll find out tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. whether any of these cases made the cut.
Thanks to Bryan U. Gividen for once again compiling this update. And thanks to the rest of the Relist Watch gang – Stephen Gilstrap, Ralph Mayrell, Conor McEvily, and Dmitry Slavin – for everything they did this Term. It’s a tremendous amount of work with very little payoff but at least . . . well, there’s nothing good that can be said about it.
See you in the fall (probably)!
Previous Relist – Relisted Again
Issue(s): Whether a law prohibiting religiously motivated conduct violates the Free Exercise Clause when it exempts the same conduct when done for a host of secular reasons, has been enforced only against religious conduct, and has a history showing an intent to target religion.
Issue(s): Whether allegations that members of a business association agreed to adhere to the association’s rules and possess governance rights in the association, without more, are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, as the court of appeals held below, or are insufficient, as the Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held.
Issue(s): Whether allegations that members of a business association agreed to adhere to the association's rules and possess governance rights in the association, without more, are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, as the Court of Appeals held below, or are insufficient, as the Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held.
Issue(s): (1) Whether, by limiting suit to “aggrieved person[s],” Congress required that a Fair Housing Act plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact; and (2) whether proximate cause requires more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies.
Issue(s): (1) Whether the term “aggrieved” in the Fair Housing Act imposes a zone-of-interests requirement more stringent than the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III; and (2) whether the City is an “aggrieved person” under the Fair Housing Act.
Issue(s): (1) Whether capital defense counsel may decide to present evidence of a single mitigating factor without having first conducted a thorough investigation of other potential mitigating factors and whether counsel's post-hoc concern about possible rebuttal evidence justifies the failure to investigate; and (2) whether, where a state court provides a reasoned decision denying relief, 18 U.S.C. Section 2254(d) permits a federal court to ignore the reasoning of the state court and substitute its own reasons for denying relief and whether the violent nature of the crime lessens the prejudice from unconstitutional shackling.
Issue(s): (1) Whether the phrase “to sue and be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal” in the charter of the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) confers original jurisdiction over every case brought by or against Fannie Mae to the federal courts; and (2) whether the Court's decision in American National Red Cross v. S.G. should be reversed. CVSG: 05/23/2016.
Issue(s): Whether the pleading standard for alleging that a case falls within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception is more demanding than the standard for pleading jurisdiction under the federal-question statute, which allows a jurisdictional dismissal only if the federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. CVSG: 05/24/2016.
Issue(s): Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in deciding that the relationship between public and private actors does not invoke dual obligations to accommodate disabilities in any context other than an express contractual relationship between a public entity and its private vendor. CVSG: 05/20/2016.
Issue(s): Whether the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 commands exhaustion in a suit, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, that seeks damages – a remedy that is not available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. CVSG: 05/20/2016.
Issue(s): Whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a manner that violates the statutory priority scheme. CVSG: 05/23/2016.
Issue(s): (1) Whether, under the third clause of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, a breach-of-contract action is “based … upon” any act necessary to establish an element of the claim, including acts of contract formation or performance, or solely those acts that breached the contract; and (2) whether, under Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, a breaching party’s failure to make contractually required payments in the United States causes a “direct effect” in the United States triggering the commercial activity exception where the parties’ expectations and course of dealing have established the United States as the place of payment, or only where payment in the United States is unconditionally required by contract. CVSG: 05/24/2016.
Issue(s): Whether the failure to give a truthfulness oath to prospective jurors prior to conducting voir dire constitutes structural error under the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause or the 6th Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress’s decision to impose a different physical-presence requirement on unwed citizen mothers of foreign-born children than on other citizen parents of foreign-born children through 8 U.S.C. 1401 and 1409 (1958) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in conferring U.S. citizenship on respondent, in the absence of any express statutory authority to do so.
Issue(s): (1) Whether a regulation of abortion doctors is subject to a facial challenge under Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England and Gonzales v. Carhart, when a majority of abortion doctors have already satisfied the requirement, and where the only doctors not already in compliance failed to make diligent efforts; and (2) whether a challenge to a regulation of abortion doctors under the Due Process Clause falls within the “very limited and well-defined class of cases,” City of Columbia v. Omni Outdoor Advertising, Inc., in which inquiry into the legislature’s subjective motives is permissible.
Issue(s): Whether a state's interest in “increas[ing] . . . information concerning those who support the candidates,” Buckley v. Valeo, permits it to condition a charity's publication of a nonpartisan voter education guide, which lists all candidates equally and makes no endorsements, upon the immediate and public disclosures of the names and addresses of individuals making unrelated donations over the previous four years.
Issue(s): (1) Whether Petitioner's sentence should be reversed because the district court erred in imposing a 16-level enhancement based on Petitioner's prior conviction under California Health & Safety Code § 11351; (2) whether Petitioner's sentence should be reversed because the district court erred in denying a departure for cultural assimilation under United States Sentencing Guidelines §2L1.2; and (3) whether Petitioner's sentence should be reversed because the district court failed to reasonably consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
Issue(s): (1) Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.