WHAT WE'RE READING

The morning read for Tuesday, April 23

The justices will hear oral argument in Department of State v. Muñoz and Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney today. Each weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. Here’s the Tuesday morning read:

• Starbucks takes on the federal labor agency before the US Supreme Court (Dee-Ann Durbin, The Associated Press)
• US Supreme Court examines firings of pro-union Starbucks workers (Andrew Chung & John Kruzel, Reuters)
• Supreme Court hears case about L.A. man denied visa in part over his tattoos (Andrea Castillo, The Los Angeles Times)
• Supreme Court Seems Poised to Uphold Local Bans on Homeless Encampments (Abbie VanSickle, The New York Times)
• Trump’s immunity case is another reminder that all roads now lead to the Supreme Court (Ronald Brownstein, CNN)

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.

CASE PREVIEW

Court to mull injunction in Starbucks case against Memphis union organizers

Union organizing efforts at Starbucks probably are the most protracted labor dispute of the decade, and on Tuesday the Supreme Court will hear argument in a closely watched case arising from the company’s firing of seven employees at a Memphis branch. The workers, known as the Memphis 7, said they were fired in retaliation for trying to unionize. The union, Starbucks Workers United, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, which went to federal court and won a preliminary injunction.

Now, to be clear, the legal issue in this case has little to do with the propriety of Starbucks’ opposition to the union organizers. Rather, it is largely a procedural question: What standard should courts use to determine whether to issue issuing such a preliminary injunction? But the question is crucial in unionization disputes, because those injunctions can win employees their jobs back and can restrict companies for years while the NLRB completes administrative proceedings – for example, the one in this case has been in place for 20 months already.

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.