Mexico’s lawsuit against US gun manufacturers is scheduled for trial by the Justices
SCOTUS NEWS
The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in two cases in the coming months. The first will be on February 26 in a case that involves the proof plaintiffs must provide in “reverse-discrimination” cases. The second will be on March The court released its calendar for February’s argument session on Friday morning. It begins on Feb. 24, and runs through March. 5. Here is a complete list of the cases set for argument during the February argument session:
Here is a full list of the cases set for argument during the February argument session:
Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feb. 24): Whether a Texas man on death row has a legal right to sue, known as standing, to challenge the state law governing postconviction DNA testing.
Esteras v. United States (Feb. 25): Whether, in considering whether to revoke an individual’s supervised release and impose a prison sentence, a court may consider factors from the law governing sentencing that the supervised release law does not mention.
Perttu v. Richards (Feb. 25): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claims.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Feb. 26): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of a federal employment discrimination claim, a plaintiff in a reverse discrimination case – here, a heterosexual woman alleging that she was the victim of discrimination based on her sexual orientation – must also show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. (consolidated for one hour of oral argument with Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.) (Mar. The question is whether plaintiffs have to prove a minimum contact before federal courts can assert their personal jurisdiction over foreign countries sued under the Foreign Sovereign immunity Act. The question is whether the strict standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (60(b)(6) requiring the showing of exceptional circumstances to justify a reopening of an final judgment applies to a request for a post-judgment to vacate the judgment in order to file an amended complaint.0100 4): Whether a lawsuit by the Mexican government against U.S. gun manufacturers, arguing that they had aided and abetted the illegal sales of guns to traffickers for cartels in Mexico, should go forward.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (with Interim Storage Partners v. Texas) (Mar. 5): Whether the Hobbs Act, which allows a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to seek review in a federal court of appeals, authorizes nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory power; and whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
