Issue: (1) Whether 26 U.S.C. § 512(a)(3)(E)(i), which provides that investment income of a voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (“VEBA”) is tax exempt only if a set-aside of the income for a purpose specified in Section 512(a)(3)(B)(ii) “does not result in an amount of assets set aside for such purpose in excess of the account limit determined under section 419A” – which, along with Section 419, limits an employer’s deduction for contributions to a VEBA – must be interpreted consistently with Sections 419 and 419A to mean that a set-aside of income results in set-aside assets only if the income is considered, under Section 419(c), not to have been spent for a specified purpose in the year the income is earned, but instead to have been accumulated for use in a later year; (2) whether a regulation adopting the Federal Circuit’s interpretation outstanding in “temporary” form since 1986 should be given deference despite having been issued without the explanation required by 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) and without the prior notice and comment required by 5 U.S.C. § 553; and (3) whether the variance rule in Treasury Regulation § 301.6402-2(b)(1) is jurisdictional, barring the deference argument and precluding application of judicial exceptions to such administrative exhaustion requirements.
On Monday, the justices met for their September 26 conference. They issued orders from this conference on Thursday. The court granted certiorari in nine cases, consolidating two. The October sitting will begin on October 3; the argument calendar for that sitting is available on the court's website.
Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami (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.
Moore v. Texas (1) Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed.
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
BeavEx Inc. v. Costello Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts generally-applicable state laws that force motor carriers to treat and pay all drivers as “employees” rather than as independent contractors.