Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation and American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation, the consolidated challenges to the EPA’s authority to require states to take measures to prevent their air pollution from affecting their downwind neighbors. In his coverage of the argument for this blog, Lyle Denniston reports that the ninety minutes of oral argument appeared to go well for the federal government – a sentiment echoed by Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal. In his coverage for Greenwire, Jeremy P. Jacobs suggests that, “[w]ith Justice Samuel Alito recusing himself, the court’s liberal four justices appeared sympathetic to EPA’s arguments, and there appeared to be some division among the four conservatives.” Continue reading »
This morning at 10:00 a.m. we expect one or more opinions in argued cases. We will start the live blog at 9:45.
After issuing opinions, the Justices will hear oral arguments in Lozano v. Alvarez, which Amy Howe previewed for this blog, followed by oral arguments in White v. Woodall, which Jordan Steiker previewed for this blog.
The petition of the day is:
Issue: (1) Whether the civil remedy provision of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2333, supports claims against defendants based on theories of secondary liability, and requires plaintiffs to establish that a defendant’s support provided to a terrorist organization was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs’ injury; (2) whether U.S. courts have personal jurisdiction over defendants who, acting abroad, provide material support to a terrorist organization that attacks the territorial United States and the defendant intends to provide support to the organization, knows of the organization’s objective and history of attacking U.S. interests, and can foresee that its material support will be used in attacks on the United States.
Tomorrow at 10 a.m., the Court will wade into the arena of international family law for the third time in less than four years. In Lozano v. Alvarez, the Court will once again interpret the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a treaty that addresses international custody disputes.
The transcript in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation and American Lung Association v. EME Homer City Generation, which Lyle covered for this blog, is here.
It is rare these days in Washington for the Environmental Protection Agency to have a good day, with important figures showing sympathy for the difficulty of its task. But the EPA could walk away from Tuesday’s oral arguments on how the agency acted to limit foul air from floating from state to state, with a sense that maybe it did it about right. As usual, it faced some criticism, true, but this time that did not dominate.
The combined cases the Court heard for about ninety minutes (EPA v. EME Homer City Generation and American Lung Association v EME Homer City Generation) are deeply complex. So the Justices found it helpful to approach them through more familiar analogies and hypotheticals. But those, too, seemed to work in the EPA’s favor.
In a casebook-worthy unanimous opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, the Court clearly defined the scope of the Younger doctrine’s outer bounds.
An audio slideshow about the recently settled Fair Housing Act case Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc.
Litigants and attorneys have taken to heart the Court’s admonitions that jurisdictional rules should be “simple, clear, and certain,” based on uniform, bright lines, and capable of easy administration. Or, as Justice Alito put it in Monday’s argument in Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund, in a question to Ray Haluch’s counsel, the Court is looking for “the rule that trips up the fewest lawyers.” The argument illustrates a problem, however: Sometimes two competing rules both satisfy that requirement.