Seven mostly low-profile cases are slated for oral arguments in January

The Supreme Court on Thursday morning released its calendar for the January argument session. After hearing arguments during the first three months of the 2022-23 term in blockbuster cases involving affirmative action, voting, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and tension between free speech and state nondiscrimination laws, the justices will begin 2023 on a quieter note. The justices will hear oral arguments in just seven cases over five days, on issues ranging from the attorney-client privilege to immigration law and the National Labor Relations Act.

Here is the full list of cases scheduled for the January argument session:

In re Grand Jury (Jan. 9): Whether a law firm that specializes in international tax issues must turn over documents that the firm says are protected by the attorney-client privilege, but also contain non-legal advice.
Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (Jan. 9): Whether the FLRA can regulate the labor practices of state national guards.
Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Jan. 10): Whether federal labor laws trump a state-court lawsuit against a union for intentionally destroying an employer’s property during a property dispute.
Financial Oversight Board v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (Jan. 11): Whether Puerto Rico’s financial oversight board is immune from a lawsuit filed by a nonprofit press group seeking documents from the board.
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (Jan. 17): Whether federal immigration law precludes a federal court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding because the immigrant had not filed a motion to reconsider.
Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (Jan. 17): Whether criminal charges can go forward against a Turkish bank owned and controlled by the Turkish government.
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (Jan. 18): Whether and when federal education law required a Michigan student who did not receive a qualified sign-language interpreter for years to fully pursue his claims against the school district in administrative proceedings even when doing so would be pointless.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.