Today the Supreme Court granted review in the following cases.

  • Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred by using a “discretionary-function exception” derived from the Federal Tort Claims Act, from which the Supreme Court generally has declined to borrow rules, instead of the test set forth in Federal Housing Authority v. Burr when testing the immunity of governmental “sue and be sued” entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority), to immunize the Tennessee Valley Authority from the plaintiffs’ claims; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit correctly applied the discretionary-function test, in any case; and whether the lower court correctly held that safely raising a downed power line from the Tennessee River constitutes the sort of “policy”-laden discretionary work that this exception was designed to immunize from suit.
  • Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson: (1) Whether, under the Class Action Fairness Act – which permits “any defendant” in a state-court class action to remove the action to federal court if it satisfies certain jurisdictional requirements – an original defendant to a class-action claim that was originally asserted as a counterclaim against a co-defendant can remove the class action to federal court if it otherwise satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act; and (2) whether the Supreme Court’s holding in Shamrock Oil & Gas Co. v. Sheets — that an original plaintiff may not remove a counterclaim against it — extends to third-party counterclaim defendants. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case.]
  • Azar v. Allina Health Services: Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2) or § 1395hh(a)(4) required the Department of Health and Human Services to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before providing the challenged instructions to a Medicare administrative contractor making initial determinations of payments due under Medicare.
  • Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.: Whether the Copyright Act’s allowance of “full costs,” 17 U.S.C. § 505, to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 11th Circuits have held, or whether the Act also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held.
  • Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Byrd: Whether the 21st Amendment empowers states, consistent with the dormant commerce clause, to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entitles that have resided in-state for a specified time.

We expect the court to issue additional orders from its September 24 conference on Monday, October 1.

Posted in Merits Cases, What's Happening Now

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Court grants certiorari in five cases, SCOTUSblog (Sep. 27, 2018, 10:02 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/09/court-grants-certiorari-in-five-cases/