SCOTUS NEWS

Justices take up “ghost guns” case for next term

Though still far behind the number of cases granted for the next term this time last year, the court on Monday added two new cases to its docket for the 2024-2025 term. The justices agreed to weigh in on a challenge to a rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives regulating so-called “ghost guns” – firearms without serial numbers that virtually anyone can assemble from parts, often purchased in a kit. Garland v. VanDerStok was one of two cases granted on Monday on a list of orders from the justices’ private conference last week.

The dispute over the “ghost guns” rule is one with which the justices were already familiar. Last June, a federal district judge in Fort Worth, Texas, barred the ATF from enforcing the rule anywhere in the United States. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed with manufacturers and sellers of ghost gun kits and parts that applying the rule to ghost guns was inconsistent with federal firearms laws. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which hears appeals from federal trial courts in Texas, declined to put O’Connor’s ruling on hold, the Biden administration came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to step in.

WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Monday, April 22

The justices will hear oral argument in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson and Smith v. Spizzirri this morning. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Monday morning read:

• Supreme Court weighs Oregon city’s power to punish the homeless (Lawrence Hurley, NBC News)
• The miscarriage was inevitable. Could she have had an ER abortion? Supreme Court to decide (Maureen Groppe, USA Today)
• Homelessness case before US supreme court could have far-reaching effects (Diana Ramirez-Simon, The Guardian) 
• Workplace DEI Worry Shouldn’t Overshadow a Civil Rights Victory (Madeline Meth & Brian Wolfman, Bloomberg Law)
• The Supreme Court Should Rule Swiftly on Trump’s Immunity Claim (Liz Cheney, The New York Times)

CASE PREVIEW

To stay or dismiss a suit while waiting for arbitration?

It seems like the justices can’t have a monthly argument session without at least one case under the Federal Arbitration Act. Monday’s argument in Smith v. Spizziri asks what the options are for a trial judge who refers a pending suit to arbitration. Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act says that if the court refers the case to arbitration, it “shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had.” The question is whether the trial court, instead of staying the action, can go ahead and dismiss it entirely.

Wendy Smith is one of a group of delivery drivers who argue that their employers (including Keith Spizziri) violated a variety of federal and state employment laws. The drivers sued, but the employers removed the case to federal court and then, predictably enough, urged the court to refer the case to arbitration. The court agreed to send the case to arbitration, but did not merely grant a stay; rather, it dismissed the suit entirely.

Petitions of the week

Kentucky man says police violated Fourth Amendment by searching his backpack during arrest

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here.

The Fourth Amendment generally bars police from searching people or their property without a warrant. The Supreme Court has made an exception for searches made during an arrest. But although that exception applies to arrestees themselves, it only extends to their nearby possessions if there is a risk they can reach into them to grab a weapon or destroy evidence. This week, we highlight petitions that ask the court to consider, among other things, whether a backpack that is outside the reach of a person in handcuffs falls within the warrant exception.

CASE PREVIEW

Supreme Court to hear case on criminal penalties for homelessness

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Monday in a case that one legal expert has called the “most important Supreme Court case about homelessness in at least 40 years.” The issue before the court is the constitutionality of ordinances in an Oregon town that bar people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within the city limits. Defending the ordinances, the city contends that the laws simply bar camping on public property by everyone. But the challengers in the case counter that the ordinances effectively make it a crime to be homeless in the city.

The court’s ruling could have a significant impact not only in the small city of Grants Pass, Oregon, whose ordinances are being challenged, but in cities across the United States, where similar laws have proliferated. The “camping ban” model of legislation has been adopted more widely in recent years as state and local governments try to grapple with double-digit increases in the number of people who are homeless. Data released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development indicated that more than 600,000 people in the United States were homeless on a single night in 2023.