The Supreme Court’s last day of schedule argument this term is April 27. In the final two weeks, it will consider cases involving immigration (two “deferred action” programs) and compelled alcohol testing without a warrant. [The Court also takes up issues relevant in patent and copyright litigation, the False Claims Act, specific criminal law issues, and other matters that are not recommended for the casual observer but are listed over on scotusblog.]
Monday, April 18
The sole case scheduled for today is among the most controversial of the term, U.S. v. Texas. The case is a challenge by 26 states to the Obama Administration’s DACA and DAPA policies (more fully, Deferred Action for Children Arrivals and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents). The policies would (they were enjoined before implemented) provide guidelines for immigration authorities to postpone action on people who are alleged to be in the US illegally. There is longstanding authority that the executive branch can choose how to prioritize prosecution of cases. The central complication seems to be that formal deferred action would cause the individual to be termed “lawfully present,” which arguably comes with benefits and effects a change in the law that was not authorized by Congress or even arrived at through the normal process for considering and adopting Agency regulations (known as “notice and comment rule making,” as required by the Administrative Procedures Act) and would be–the states say–beyond the scope of what can be authorized by Executive Order. One interesting and useful response to that argument is available here.
If you go to the arguments, follow that link and take some time to understand the terminology. The politicized dispute is familiar but the legal arguments may be a little harder to follow without some preparation. And get there early–this is a highly controversial area and the arguments are sure to draw a crowd. (Or get there later and just plan to take in the demonstrations and press conferences out front.)
Wednesday, April 20
Several consolidated cases (one hour total) involve laws that make it a crime to refuse to take a drunk-driving test. The Court accepted cases with factual differences: one person refused to take a breathalyzer, another refused a blood test, and another refused a field sobriety test and was then taken to the hospital for a blood test against his will. In each instance, there was no warrant but a state law required compliance with a police officer’s order to take the test. In 2013, the Court issued an opinion that seemed suspicious of general rules that no warrant was required, but noted that dissipation of alcohol in the blood could amount to risk of loss of evidence and “exigent circumstances” in at least some cases, permitting a search without a warrant. However, the Court was divided and the facts were unclear in that case. A useful overview is available here.
The Court will also hear a case with limited applicability but a rather interesting question. The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that certain types of employees are exempt from overtime pay, including “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.” The question in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro is whether “Service Advisors,” who meet the customer coming in for service and decide what services the customer needs, is within that category of employees exempt from overtime pay.