Fourteen cases to watch at the Supreme Court’s “long conference” at the end of
RELIST WATCH
Just prior to The “long conference” of the Supreme Court took place on September 30th this year. 15 The justices needed more time to review 14 cases that had been first discussed at the long conference The justices allowed one relist to remain over the summer. Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency and PacifiCorp v. Environmental Protection Agency Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, and PacifiCorp v. Environmental Protection The U.S. Courts of Appeals of the 4th, 5th The 10th Circuit ruled that Oklahoma’s and Utah’s plans could only be challenged Growth Energy v. Calumet Refining, L.L.C. In two final actions, EPA denied 105 petitions by small oil refineries that sought Six of these refineries filed a petition for review of EPA decisions in the 5th Circuit. The EPA and a intervenor are now challenging that denial. They argue that the Circuit. The Supreme Court invalidated a removal restriction in Seila Law LLC v. Consumer The 5th Circuit ruled that the CPSC’s removal restrictions did violate the separation This case, similar to last term’s Coalition for TJ against Fairfax County School Board The committee members reportedly expressed their desire to reduce racial disparities in the exam The district court found that some members of the board “harbored … racial animus” and that “the race-neutral criteria were chosen precisely because of their effect on racial demographics.”
But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit held that the School Committee had not violated the equal protection clause because Asian-American and white applicants continued to earn seats at the schools at a rate above the groups’ share of the applicant pool and race itself was not used as a selection criterion for individual students.
The question that the the justices have been asked to decide is whether an equal protection challenge to facially race-neutral admission criteria can go forward when members of the racial groups targeted for decline still receive a balanced share of admissions offers commensurate with their share of the applicant pool. Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in Coalition for TJ. The state supreme court ruled that the prosecution had not violated the Second Amendment, in The state court wrote that the Supreme Court was “handpicking
history Thomas wrote last term that the court should “in an appropriate situation” consider whether New York City G-Max Management, Inc. V. New York offers the court another opportunity to do so The group also asks the court to overrule or clarify the standard established by Penn Central The group also asks the court to overrule or clarify the standard established by Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City for determining when a regulatory taking occurs.
And in a case from the far tip of Long Island, Brinkmann v. Town of Southold, New York, two brothers ask the justices to consider “whether the Takings Clause” – and, in particular, the requirement that the property be taken “for public use” – “is violated when a property is taken for a public amenity as a pretext for defeating an owner’s plans for another use.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, by a 2-to-1 vote, held that Ben and Hank Brinkmann could not maintain a takings claim despite evidence that the town’s decision to create a park with their land was a pretext for preventing them from opening a hardware store.[EPA]In dissent, Judge Stephen Menashi wrote that “the Constitution contains no Fake Park Exception to the public use requirement of the Takings Clause,” and that a park does not satisfy the public-use requirement when its actual purpose and but-for cause is stopping lawful activity.
Planned Parenthood affiliates provide medical care to low-income individuals through state Medicaid programs. In 2018, South Carolina terminated a Medicaid provider agreement with a Planned Parent The affiliate and a patient sued under 42 U.S.C. SS 1983. Judge Julius Richardson concurred in the judgment and asked the Supreme Court to clarify the legal Judge Julius Richardson concurred in the judgment, asking the Supreme Court to clarify the legal tests governing the inquiry.
Robert Kerr, the director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, now asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider; he also asks the court to clarify the scope of a Medicaid beneficiary’s right to choose a provider that a state has deemed disqualified.
The court also relisted four criminal cases. Andrew v. White is the most interesting case. Brenda Evers Andrew, a former wife of Robert Andrew, was convicted by an Oklahoma Both Brenda Evers Andrew, and Pavatt, were sentenced death. Andrew claims that Miranda v. Arizona requires Miranda warnings to be given before a cu The court rescheduled the case 11 times between March 2024 and July 2024, before requesting the records, which have now been received from the lower courts. The case is clearly of interest to at least one justice. William Davis was arrested on charges of aggravated traffic violations and assigned a public defender. The trial judge refused to delay the trial because Davis’s public defender was in another trial that day. This forced the late appointment of a lawyer over Davis’s objection. Davis was convicted.[Supreme]The Colorado court of appeals reversed Davis’s conviction, holding that indigent defendants are entitled to continued representation by their court-appointed lawyers. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the Sixth Amendment does not provide a right for private retained counsel to continue representation. The court ruled that defendants who are assigned a lawyer by a court can only retain the same attorney if they can prove that changing lawyers would be detrimental to them. Davis seeks review of that ruling.[i]Attorney Elana Gordon was arrested and charged with smuggling a controlled substance into a jail while visiting a prospective client. A Massachusetts state-court judge allowed a supervisor from a state crime laboratory to testify about the substance’s identity based on notes taken by the analyst who performed the test. The supervisor was not present or involved in the tests, but claimed that their testimony represented their “independent opinions.” Arizona.) Gordon argues this improper use is rampant in Massachusetts courtrooms. While Gordon lists as a separate question the issue of whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel precludes a criminal defendant’s trial counsel from suggesting to a jury that trial counsel does not believe the testimony of the defendant, that issue is mentioned only in a footnote in the fact section of her petition and does not appear to be properly presented.
Last up is Esteras v. United States. The supervised-release law, 18 U.S.C. SS 3583(e) cross-references a few, but not all of the subprovisions in 18 U.S.C. SS 3553 (a). Congress omitted factors set forth in Section 3503(a)(2)(A), including the need for a sentence that reflects the seriousness of an offense, promotes respect for the laws, and provides a just punishment for committing the offense. Edgardo Esteras claims that five courts, including the 6th Circuit, in his case, concluded that district court judges could rely on Section 3553(a), but four other courts concluded they couldn’t. The government argues that courts may properly consider these factors and that any modest disagreement among courts of appeals regarding the question presented “
has no practical effect.”
We will know more after the next order list. Tune in next time!
New Relists
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency, 23-1067[ing]Issue[t]: Whether a final action by the EPA taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the D.C. Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )
PacifiCorp v. Environmental Protection Agency, 23-1068
Issue
: Whether the EPA’s disapproval of a State Implementation Plan may only be challenged in the D.C. Circuit under 42 U.S.C. SS 7607(b)(1) if EPA packages that disapproval with disapprovals of other states’ SIPs and purports to use a consistent method in evaluating the state-specific determinations in those SIPs.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )
Davis v. Colorado, 23-1096
Issue
: Whether, once counsel has been appointed for an indigent defendant, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant the same right to continued representation by that counsel as is enjoyed by defendants affluent enough to retain counsel.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )
Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp v. The School Committee for the City of Boston, 23-1137
Issue
: Whether an equal protection challenge to facially race-neutral admission criteria is barred simply because members of the racial groups targeted for decline still receive a balanced share of admissions offers commensurate with their share of the applicant pool.[a](Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )
G-Max Management, Inc. v. New York, 23-1148
Issues
: (1) Whether New York’s rent-regulation laws, and in particular its new restrictions on owner reclamation and condo/co-op conversions, effect physical takings; and (2) whether this court should overrule Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, or at least clarify the standards for determining when a regulatory taking occurs.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 23-1229
Issue
: Whether venue for the refineries’ challenges lies exclusively in the D.C. Circuit because the agency’s actions of denial are “nationally applicable,” or alternatively “based on a nationwide scope or impact determination.” 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1).
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Growth Energy v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., 23-1230
Issue
: Whether an action by the EPA is “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” for purposes of laying venue under 42 U.S.C. SS 7607(b)(1) when the action uses a common legal requirement and a general factual finding to resolve all pending “small refinery” petitions for exemption from annual obligations under the Renewable Fuel Program irrespective of the petitioning refineries’ location.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, 23-1275
Issues
: (1) Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider; and (2) what the scope of a Medicaid beneficiary’s alleged right is to choose a provider that a state has deemed disqualified.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Brinkmann v. Town of Southold, New York, 23-1301
Issue
: Whether the takings clause is violated when a property is taken for a public amenity as pretext for defeating an owner’s plans for another use.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Consumers’ Research v. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 23-1323
Issue
: Whether the for-cause restriction on the president’s authority to remove commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission violates the separation of powers.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Andrew v. White, 23-6573
Issues
: (1) Whether clearly established federal law as determined by this court forbids the prosecution’s use of a woman’s plainly irrelevant sexual history, gender presentation, and role as a mother and wife to assess guilt and punishment; and (2) whether this court should summarily reverse in light of cumulative effect of the errors in this case at guilt and sentencing, including the introduction of a custodial statement made without the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona.
(Rescheduled before the March 28, April 5, April 12, April 19, April 26, May 9, May 16, May 23, May 30, June 6, June 13, June 20, and July 1 conferences; relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Gordon v. Massachusetts, 23-7150
Issues
: (1) Whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute forensic expert conveying testimonial statements of a non-testifying forensic analyst on the grounds that the testifying expert offers a purportedly “independent opinion;” and (2) whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel precludes a criminal defendant’s trial counsel from suggesting to a jury that trial counsel does not believe the testimony of the defendant.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Esteras v. United States, 23-7483
Issue
: Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. SS 3553 (a)(2)(A), which is not included in 18 U.S.C. SS 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Wilson v. Hawaii, 23-7517
Issue
: Whether the test of New York State Rifie & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen determines when a state’s criminal prosecution for carrying a handgun without a license violates the Second Amendment.
(Relisted after the Sept. 30 conference. )Returning Relists
Hamm v. Smith, 23-167
Issues:
(1) Whether Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas mandate that courts deem the standard of “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” for determining intellectual disability in Atkins v. Virginia satisfied when an offender’s lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hall and Moore, or at least clarify that they permit courts to consider multiple IQ scores and the probability that an offender’s IQ does not fall at the bottom of the lowest IQ score’s error range.(Relisted after the Jan. 5, Jan. 12, Jan. 19, Feb. 16, Feb. 23, March. 1, March. 15, March. 22, March. 28, April. 12, April. 19, April. 26 May 9, May 16, may 23, May 30, June 6 June 13, June 20 and Sept. 30 conferences.
