Today the court granted review in the following cases.

  • Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District: What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
  • McLane Co. v. EEOC: Whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, which only the Ninth Circuit does, or should be reviewed deferentially, which eight other circuits do, consistent with this Court’s precedents concerning the choice of standards of review.
  • Nelson v. Colorado: Whether Colorado’s requirement that defendants must prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence to get their money back, after reversal of conviction of a crime entailing various monetary penalties, is consistent with due process.
  • Lee v. Tam: Whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
  • Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman: Whether state no-surcharge laws unconstitutionally restrict speech conveying price information (as the Eleventh Circuit has held), or regulate economic conduct (as the Second and Fifth Circuits have held).
  • Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, consolidated with Musnuff v. Haeger: Whether a federal court is required to tailor compensatory civil sanctions imposed under inherent powers to harm directly caused by sanctionable misconduct when the court does not afford sanctioned parties the protections of criminal due process.
  • Lynch v. Dimaya: Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions governing an alien’s removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague.
  • Lewis v. Clarke: Whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment.

We expect the court to issue additional orders from its September 26 conference on Monday, October 3.

Posted in Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Court grants certiorari in nine cases, consolidating two, SCOTUSblog (Sep. 29, 2016, 9:49 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/court-adds-eight-cases-to-its-merits-docket/