Court releases November argument calendar
on Jul 8, 2019 at 2:31 pm
The Supreme Court released the calendar for its November sitting today. On November 12, the justices will hear oral argument in what promises to be one of the biggest disputes of the term: the challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to terminate the program known as “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” or “DACA,” which allowed young adults who were brought to this country illegally as children to apply for protection from deportation. On the same day, the justices will also hear – for the second time – oral argument in a lawsuit brought by the family of a Mexican teenager who was shot by a U.S. Border Patrol agent across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The justices did not schedule New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, the challenge to the city’s ban on transporting a licensed handgun outside city limits, for oral argument. The case was granted in January and is now the oldest case not yet slated for oral argument, but last week the city told the court that the case is moot as a result of changes to both city and state laws.
During the sitting, which begins on Monday, November 4, the justices will hear a total of 10 hours of oral argument in 12 cases over five days; there are no arguments on Monday, November 11, which is a federal holiday.
A full list of cases scheduled for oral argument follows the jump.
Barton v. Barr (Monday, Nov. 4): Whether a lawful permanent resident who is not seeking to be admitted to the United States can be rendered inadmissible for purposes of the “stop-time” rule, which ends a period of continuous residence if someone commits an offense that would make him inadmissible to the United States.
Kansas v. Glover (Monday, Nov. 4): Whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for a police officer to suspect that the registered owner of the car is the person driving the car.
CITGO Asphalt Refining v. Frescati Shipping Co. (Tuesday, Nov. 5): Whether a clause in the contract governing the charter of a tanker providing that CITGO would direct the tanker to a “safe place or wharf” was a guarantee of safety or instead simply required CITGO to use due diligence.
Allen v. Cooper (Tuesday, Nov. 5): Whether Congress had the power to repeal the states’ immunity from lawsuits when it enacted the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act.
County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (Wednesday, Nov. 6): Whether a violation of the Clean Water Act occurs only when a pollutant is released directly into navigable waters, or whether it is enough that the pollutant is released indirectly.
Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander (Wednesday, Nov. 6): Whether ERISA plaintiffs can survive a motion to dismiss when they make general allegations that the costs of undisclosed fraud grow over time.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Trump v. NAACP and McAleenan v. Vidal (Tuesday, Nov. 12): Whether courts can review the decision to end DACA; and, if so, whether the decision to end DACA was lawful.
Hernandez v. Mesa (Tuesday, Nov. 12): Whether, when the plaintiffs allege that a rogue law-enforcement officer violated clearly established Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights for which there is no other legal remedy, courts should recognize a claim for damages against him.
Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media (Wednesday, Nov. 13): Whether a claim that a defendant violated the federal law barring racial discrimination in contracts requires the plaintiff to show that the defendant would not have turned the plaintiff down were it not for the plaintiff’s race.
Ritzen Group v. Jackson Masonry (Wednesday, Nov. 13): Whether an order denying a creditor’s motion to lift an automatic stay in bankruptcy is a final order that the creditor can appeal.
This post was also published at Howe on the Court.
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the respondents in Kansas v. Glover and CITGO. However, I am not affiliated with the firm.]