Abortion, CFPB cases scheduled for February sitting
on Nov 26, 2019 at 1:17 pm
This morning the Supreme Court released the calendar for the justices’ February argument session, which begins on Monday, February 24, and runs through the first week of March. During the session, the court will hear nine hours of oral argument over six days. The highest-profile cases of the sitting will come at the end of the session: On March 3, the justices will hear argument in the challenge to the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, followed by argument on March 4 in the dispute over the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital. The justices will also devote a significant portion of their docket in the February session to the subject of immigration, with three separate immigration cases.
Here is the full list of the cases to be argued in the February session, with a short summary of the issues in each:
U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association & Atlantic Coast Pipeline v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association (consolidated for one hour of oral argument on Feb. 24): Whether the Appalachian Trail is part of the National Park System, so that the U.S. Forest Service cannot grant a right-of-way under the trail.
Opati v. Sudan (Feb. 24): Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively, thereby allowing punitive damages against a foreign country for terrorist activities that occurred before the current version of the statute was enacted.
United States v. Sineneng-Smith (Feb. 25): Constitutionality of a federal law that makes it a crime to encourage or cause illegal immigration for financial gain.
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez (Feb. 26): Whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a “strike” for purposes of the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Nasrallah v. Barr (Mar. 2): Whether the federal courts of appeals have the authority to review the factual findings at the heart of decisions denying withholding of removal.
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (Mar. 2): Whether a federal law that limits judicial review of expedited deportation orders in habeas proceedings violates the Constitution’s suspension clause.
Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Mar. 3): Challenge to the constitutionality of the leadership structure of the CFPB.
Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission (Mar. 3): Whether the SEC can seek and obtain disgorgement as “equitable relief” for a securities law violation.
June Medical Services v. Gee & Gee v. June Medical Services (consolidated for one hour of oral argument on Mar. 4): Constitutionality of Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital, and whether and when abortion providers have a legal right to challenge health-and-safety regulations on behalf of their patients.
This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.