The return of Relist Watch Select

John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists … barely.

Because the press of business is especially pressing right now, this week we’ll once again be favoring our readership with the affordable luxury of Relist Watch Select.^TM That means you’re on your own if you’d like to figure out which of last week’s relists aren’t returning (answer: most of them), or would like to know more about the smattering of interesting new additions.

Let me note only that the court has released a couple of cases it has been holding since the June 27 conference for nondelegation challenge Gundy v. United States, 17-6086, and relisted them for tomorrow. So it appears that the court’s consideration of the rehearing petition in that case is coming to a head.

That’s all for this week. There’s no conference next week, which means our next installment may not arrive until the week of October 28.

Thanks again to me for compiling the cases this week.

Returning Relists

Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 18-1019
Issue: Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion.
(relisted after the May 9, May 16, May 23, October 1 and October 11 conferences)

Gundy v. United States, 17-6086
Issue: Whether the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Attorney General in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.
(relisted after the October 1 and October 11 conferences)

Paul v. United States, 17-8830
Issue: Whether the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Attorney General in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.
(relisted after the September 24, 2018, and June 27, 2019, conferences)

Caldwell v. United States, 18-6852
Issue: Whether the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Attorney General in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.
(relisted after the February 15 and June 27 conferences)

Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, 18-8369
Issue: Whether prior Heck v. Humphrey dismissals without prejudice are strikes under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
(distributed during the third week of July; relisted after the October 1 and October 11 conferences)

Terry v. Oklahoma, 18-8801
Issue: Whether the boundaries established in the Treaty of February 23, 1867, for the eight tribes within the former Indian Territory of northeastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today under 18 U.S.C § 1151(a).
(distributed during the fourth week of August; relisted after the October 1 and October 11 conferences)

Isom v. Arkansas, 18-9517
Issue: Whether Sam Pope and Kenneth Isom’s significant adversarial history created an unconstitutional risk of bias under the due process clause when Pope later sat as the trial judge in Isom’s unrelated coram nobis hearing.
(distributed during the fourth week of August; relisted after the October 1 and October 11 conferences)

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18-9526
Issue: Whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.
(distributed during the first week of September; relisted after the October 1 and October 11 conferences)

New Relists

Nasrallah v. Barr, 18-1432
Issue: Whether, notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.
(relisted after the October 11 conference)

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 19-7
Issue: Whether the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers.
(relisted after the October 11 conference)

Peithman v. United States, 19-16
[Disclosure: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to an amicus in this case.]
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) authorizes forfeiture imposed jointly and severally among co-conspirators, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th and 8th Circuits have held, or whether such joint and several liability is foreclosed under the reasoning of Honeycutt v. United States, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has held.
(relisted after the October 11 conference)

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 19-161
Issue: Whether, as applied to the respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the suspension clause.
(relisted after the October 11 conference)