Supreme Court to face a wide range of new relists, from pork to police powers
Here is a short explanation of relists. The Supreme Court has 102 petitions on its docket this week. After several months of relisting cases at a slow rate, the court has picked up the pace: There are six newly relisted cases this week covering a wide range of subjects.
Another commerce clause challenge to California’s Proposition 12
For the second time in as many years, the Supreme Court is once again considering a challenge to California’s Proposition 12, a voter-approved measure banning the in-state sale of pork from pigs confined in ways deemed cruel, such as cages denying them at least 24 square feet of space or the ability to turn around. In Iowa Pork Producers Association V. Bonta, the pork producers argue that Proposition 12 is discriminatory against out-of state pork producers who, they claim, had less “lead-time” to comply with an earlier law (Proposition 2) than California farmers. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, dismissed the complaint, ruling that there was no plausible claim of discrimination. They also ruled that the pork producers’ claim of excessive burdens placed on interstate commerce, under the balancing tests of the 1970 case Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., (which examines whether effects on interstate commerce are merely coincidental), were foreclosed in the court’s 2023 decision, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. The majority of the court rejected the argument that the California law had an extraterritorial impact on other states. Five justices rejected the same Pike claim in separate opinions, but based on different reasoning.
That said, lower courts have had trouble determining what Ross’s governing rule is under Marks v. United States, the court’s leading precedent on how to interpret fractured holdings, which held that “
hen a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds.”
Iowa Pork Producers now seek review, arguing that their discrimination claim distinguishes this case from Ross and that the 9th Circuit misread Ross’s holding under Marks. The petition also raises claims of due process, privileges, immunities and preemption, although these are secondary to the dormant Commerce Clause challenge. California and animal welfare groups who joined the case to defend it counter that the discrimination claims are implausible. The Pike issue has been settled by Ross and the additional claim is not properly before court. What’s grabbing the court’s interest? Iowa Pork Producers claim that California farmers have a protected advantage over other states because of the lead-time difference in Proposition 12. The 9th Circuit’s dismissal of the case at the pleadings stage may tempt the court into clarifying whether such allegations merit a fuller hearing, especially in light of the commerce clause’s anti-discrimination core principle. The Pikeclaim, which is tied to Ross’s messy division, may be more difficult to sell. The court may hesitate to revisit this issue so soon, particularly with no clear split in the circuit. The Marks issue – how to parse split rulings – adds a certain academic intrigue. Since 2012, people have been wondering whether dissenting vote counts towards the “holding” of an issue. Here’s a blog I wrote about the topic. This petition faces a steep climb, given Ross’s young age and the court’s reluctance in judging state morality legislation. For now, the pork industry — and SCOTUS watchers — will have to wait to see if this piggie goes to market or cries wee-wee-wee all the way home.
Mootness and election law challenges[w]Voters supporting Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown’s 2021 independent candidacy challenged New York’s early filing deadline for independent candidate petitions, which moved the deadline from August to May, preventing Brown’s name from appearing on the ballot after his Democratic primary loss. Brown, a write-in mayor, won the office anyway, but resigned later to become CEO of an online gambling company. The U.S. Court of Appeals 2nd Circuit dismissed the challengers lawsuit as moot – that is, not a live controversy – after the election. They concluded that voters had to make specific allegations about whether they would support a late-arising independent candidate at future elections. The challengers in Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections – represented at the University of Virginia Supreme Court Clinic – argue that the case falls under the exception for matters “capable of repeating yet evading scrutiny.” They claim the 2nd Circuit decision is inconsistent with the U.S. Court of Appeals’ flexible approach which assumes that recurrence can occur if the law remains in place, and contradicts Supreme Court precedent. The board of elections agrees that the case is not moot, but urges the court to refuse review. It cites the unpublished decision as having no precedential value and a lack of voter injury. The breadth of “compassionate” release statute
Two recent cases have raised the issue of the scope of judicial authority under the so-called “compassionate releases statute,” 18 U.S.C. SS 3582 (c)(1)(A), allows a sentence to be reduced if the defendant asks for it and the sentencing court finds that “extraordinary reasons warrant” a reduction.
Joe Fernandez was sentenced to life in prison for the murder of two Mexican drug cartels members for hire. The district judge based his decision on doubts about Fernandez’s guilt, stemming from shaky testimony by a key witness, and the stark disparity The 2nd Circuit reversed the decision, holding that petitions for habeas corpse under 28 U.S.C. must be filed to assert potential innocence claims. Fernandez argues that the 2nd Circuit’s ruling conflicts with the broader view of judicial authority adopted by the U.S. Courts of Appeals of the 1st & 9th Circuits as well as Supreme Court precedents warning against placing extra-textual limitations on factors judges can take into consideration at sentencing. Joel Elliott, who was sentenced to 444 months for arson, and a Section 911(c) firearm offense under current law, also sought a reduction in sentence. He argued that his conviction would not qualify for a significant enhancement of sentencing as a “crime against violence” under the current law. He also cited both his unusual severity and his rehabilitation. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, denied him relief because circuit precedent barred his claim. This court, like Fernandez’s 2nd Circuit, ruled that Elliott’s challenge of his Section 924(c), conviction was a claim “SS 2255-like”, which could not be considered as an “extraordinary” and “compelling” reason for release. Elliott’s petition in Elliott v. United States alleges the same split as in Fernandez. It also notes that the U.S. The Sentencing Guidelines have been amended by the Sentencing Commission to include more factors that can support reductions. However, even the amended guidelines do not allow reductions based upon the factors cited in Fernandez and Elliott’s case. It remains to see if the justices will decide that the Guidelines’ changes moot the dispute or if the statute allows broader relief. New “factual predicates”, and habeas claims
Kayla AYERS was convicted of aggravated homicide after a mattress caught on fire in her dad’s basement. Ayers’s appointed lawyer did not challenge the fire inspector’s credentials at trial or hire a competing expert. Ayers filed a federal petition alleging ineffective representation of counsel. Usually, a person in state custody has one year from the date on which the judgment became final to file a habeas petition, but the one-year clock restarts when a previously undiscoverable “factual predicate” “could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.” The question here: Did that expert report restart the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act one-year limitations clock under Section 2244(d)(1)(D) as a newly discovered “factual predicate”?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit said yes, reasoning that the expert’s report provided the “vital facts” necessary to satisfy the Strickland v. Washington ineffectiveness standard and that Ayers couldn’t reasonably have discovered those facts earlier. In Chambers-Smith V. Ayers Ohio asks for the justices’ opinion, arguing that the eight circuits reject such expansive readings of Section 2244 (d)(1)(D). They also argue that allowing “new support” to restart the habeas petition clock would effectively erase the AEDPA time bar. Ayers denies there is a circuit split, and says this case involves a factual application of settled law. She also argues the petition is out of jurisdiction because the state didn’t file within 90-days after the 6th Circuit judgment — that day falling on a Saturday, the state filed on the 91st. The state counters by stating that deadlines are automatically extended if the last day falls on a weekend. And it insists that the 6th Circuit’s approach diverges from cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th Circuits that treat new expert opinions as supporting evidence, not a new predicate.
Warrantless entry to prevent a suicide
Trevor Case’s ex-girlfriend called police saying he had threatened suicide and might have a gun. Police entered Case’s home without a search warrant almost 40 minutes later, despite the fact that they suspected Case of attempting “suicide-by-cop”. Officers shot Case in the chaos that ensued, and Case was charged with assaulting an officer.
Case claimed that the officer’s entry into his home without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment and that the gun, along with other evidence, should be suppressed. Case argues in Case v. Montana that this “reasonable” belief standard improperly dilutes Brigham City V. Stuart in which the court ruled that police can enter a house without a warrant if they have “objectively rational” grounds to believe that the occupant is seriously injured, or imminently at risk of such injury. He argues that this ruling is in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals of the 2nd, the 11th and the District of Columbia Circuits which require probable cause to enter a home without a warrant, even if the emergency aid rationale is used. In a brief supporting the Supreme Court’s decision, the Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability warns that lowering the evidentiary standards could lead to broader invasions of digital and home privacy. Montana argues that in practice the “objectively rational basis” test is equivalent to probable cause, and that this split is more semantic rather than substantive.
The Court has not addressed the circumstances in which police can enter a house since Caniglia, v. Strom 2021. In that case, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained his belief that “police officers can enter a house without a warrant if they are reasonably trying prevent a suicide”. Tune in to Monday to see if they will be adding to the fall arguments calendar.
New Relists
Fernandez v. United States, 24-556
Issue:
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in recognizing extra-textual limitations on what information a court may consider when determining whether there exist extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. SS 3582(c)(1)(A).
(relisted after the May 15 conference. )
Chambers-Smith v. Ayers, 24-584
Issue:
Whether, when a person in state custody obtains new support for a previously available claim, that means she has a new “factual predicate” that restarts her clock to file a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. SS2244(d)(1)(D).
(relisted after the May 15 conference. )
Case v. Montana, 24-624
Issue:
Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.
(relisted after the May 15 conference. )
Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections, 24-684
Issue
: Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine requires plaintiffs in election law cases to predict and articulate specific plans for their own future electoral participation, or instead it is sufficient to show that the challenged law will continue to affect voters and candidates in future elections.
(relisted after the 15th of May conference. )
Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta, 24-728
Issues:
(1) Whether a party alleging that California’s Proposition 12, “which enacts a pork sales ban to regulate the manner in which pigs are housed in states across the country,” discriminates against interstate commerce, both directly and under Pike v. Bruce Church, states a claim; and (2) whether lower federal courts evaluating fractured opinions from this court consider all justices’ opinions to determine the majority position on a legal issue, or instead are limited to consider only opinions concurring in the result.
(relisted after the May 15 conference. )Elliott v. United States, 24-6126
Issue:
Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. SS 3582(c),(1)(A) may include reasons that can also be alleged to justify vacatur under 28 U.S.C. SS 2255. Returning Relists
Apache Stronghold v. United States, 24-291Issue
: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under free exercise clause of First Amendment when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction and ends specific religious rituals forever. )
Returning Relists
Apache Stronghold v. United States, 24-291Issue
: Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.
(Relisted after the Dec. 6, Dec. 13, Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2 and May 15 conferences. )
Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 24-131Issues:
(1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2 and May 15 conferences. )
Snope v. Brown, 24-203Issue:
Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.
(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2 and May 15 conferences.)
L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, 24-410Issue
: Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.
(Relisted after the Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2 and May 15 conferences. )
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, 24-781
Issue: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?(Relisted after the April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2 and May 15 conferences. )
GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, California, 24-435
Issue
: Whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.(Relisted after the April 17, April 25, May 2 and May 15 conferences. )
Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc. dba Cover Girls, 23-7490
Issue:
Whether the continuing violations doctrine applies to claims premised on a pattern or practice of discrimination, or instead applies only in the context of hostile work environment claims.(Relisted after the April 25, May 2 and May 15 conferences. )
Posted in Cases in the Pipeline
Cases: Fernandez v. United States, Chambers-Smith v. Ayers, Elliott v. United States, Case v. Montana, Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections, Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta
Recommended Citation:
John Elwood,
Supreme Court to face a wide range of new relists: From pork to police powers
SCOTUSblog
(May. 22, 2025, 3:31 PM),
