Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

We’re hosting a symposium on the Roberts court and the First Amendment’s religion clauses. In a series of six essays, scholars and commentators will analyze major decisions from the 2019-20 term and look to the future of the court’s religion jurisprudence. Click to follow along.


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
19-1305Vázquez-Garced v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico(1) Whether the Financial Management and Oversight Board for Puerto Rico may preemptively override the ability of Puerto Rico’s elected government to request reprogramming of funds under section 204(c) of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act of 2016 via a blanket ban inserted into a board-certified budget under section 202; and (2) whether the board may, by including in its certified fiscal plan a provision that suspends all reprogramming and prohibits any request from the government for board authorization of reprogramming under section 204(c), impose through the fiscal plan a policy recommendation that the governor previously rejected under section 205. (Opinion by )
20-109Schwab v. Fish(1) Whether the Constitution prohibits Kansas from requiring applicants to provide proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote; and (2) whether Section 5 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prohibits Kansas from requiring motor-voter applicants to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote. (Opinion by )
20-96United States v. Kane County, UtahWhether an advocacy organization’s environmental concerns qualify as an “interest” required by Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the organization to intervene as of right as a party defendant in a pending civil action, where no judicial relief could be granted against that organization in the action and its environmental concerns are unrelated to any claim or defense that the organization could itself assert in the action. (Opinion by )
20-72Himsel v. 4/9 Livestock, LLCWhether a state statute violates the takings clause of the United States Constitution when it provides complete immunity from nuisance and trespass liability for an industrial-scale hog facility newly sited next to long-standing family homes, even though the facility causes noxious waste substances to continuously invade those homes, making it impossible for the families to use and enjoy their properties where they have lived for decades. (Opinion by )
20-66G&M Realty L.P. v. CastilloWhether the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment permits a district court to impose liability against a property owner under the “recognized stature” provision of Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, and award enhanced statutory damages of $6.75 million, for destroying works of graffiti art affixed to his warehouses being demolished in connection with development of his property. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
At a Glance