The new Supreme Court term begins on the “First Monday” in October. This year it has a slower than usual start, with only one case set for argument on four of the first five argument days (and there’s usually six argument days in each month’s two-week block, but the second Monday is a holiday). But it will take up interpretation of the First Step Act, the constitutionality of the CFPB, ADA testers, whistleblower protections, insurance regulation, and — in one of the more high-profile cases — how to distinguish partisan gerrymandering from racial gerrymandering. See the other pages for tips on attending in-person or listening online.
Monday, October 2
Pulsifer v. US is focused on the First Step Act and the meaning of “and.” This was a bipartisan criminal justice reform law enacted in 2018. As relevant here, the Act instructs judges to disregard the mandatory minimum sentence under certain drug laws if the defendant satisfies various criteria. One of those criteria is that “the defendant does not have- (A) more than 4 criminal history points, . . . as determined under the sentencing guidelines; (B) a prior 3-point offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines; and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense, as determined under the sentencing guidelines.” An offense is assigned “points” based on severity of sentence: 3 points for 13 months or more, 2 points for less than that but more than 60 days, and 1 point for anything else.
The defendant does have both A and B, but argues that “and” means that he is eligible unless he fails on all three criteria. On the other hand, the government argues, and the 8th Circuit held, that “and” should be read severally — “a defendant is eligible for safety-valve relief if he does not have (A), does not have (B), and does not have (C).” That’s from the NAAG‘s useful explainer.
One principle in support of the government’s and 8th Circuit’s reasoning is the “presumption against surplusage,” which cautions that courts should not interpret laws in a way that renders some parts of them meaningless. In this instance, failing both B and C necessarily means failing A, so there would have been no reason to include A in the statute unless the intent was to render a defendant ineligible if they fail to meet any (not all) of the criteria.
But there are other “canons of statutory construction,” including the “presumption of consistent usage” (“and” doesn’t mean “or” elsewhere in this Act) and the “rule of lenity” (ambiguity in criminal laws should be resolved to favor the defendant). Interestingly, the conservative/libertarian Americans for Prosperity has filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant.
This is the only argument scheduled for today.
Tuesday, October 3
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America is an important case concerning the constitutionality of the funding structure for the CFPB. As Amy Howe explains, CFBP uses a:
unique funding scheme, which operates outside the normal congressional appropriations process. Instead of receiving money allocated to it each year by Congress, the CFPB receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve, which collects fees from member banks. And that scheme, the court of appeals concluded, violates the Constitution’s appropriations clause, which directs that ‘[n]o Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.’ The appropriations clause, the court of appeals explained, ‘ensures Congress’s exclusive power over the federal purse,’ which is in turn essential to ensure that other branches of government don’t overstep their authority.
The case has drawn a lot of attention and competing amicus briefs, along the lines you would expect. (The dispute started with payday lenders challenging a rule that barred them from making a third effort to withdraw funds from consumer accounts with insufficient funds, which produces high fees for those consumers.) But for an interesting perspective, see the amicus brief from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which explains how “lenders colluded with state actors to discriminate against people of color” and argues that “CFPB’s funding structure is consistent with the Appropriations Clause” and “originates from a decision by Congress to continue long-standing funding practices that enabled its predecessor federal agencies to address the safety and fairness of financial products.”
Again, this is the only case set for argument today.
Wednesday, October 4
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer is about the Americans with Disabilities Act, and specifically whether “testers” have standing. But there is also a layer of intrigue regarding the attorney for Laufer at an earlier stage in the proceeding, whose license to practice law was suspended.
There is a long tradition of “testers” in civil rights enforcement. For example, people of varying races might apply for loans from the same bank to document differences in treatment, without any intent by any of them to take out a loan if offered. This case is a bit different from that typical sort of “tester.” According to her affidavit, Laufer has MS, is visually impaired, and uses a wheelchair. After experiencing frustrations in finding accessible hotel rooms, she became involved with lawyers, forwarding them information whenever she found a hotel website that lacked sufficient information and sometimes serving as an “ADA plaintiff.”
The First Circuit’s opinion nicely sums up the issue and their holding:
Certain regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) require places of public lodging to make information about the hotel’s accessibility available on any reservation portal to those with disabilities. In the age of websites, that means a disabled person can comb the web looking for non-compliant websites, even if she has no plans whatsoever to actually book a room at the hotel. Thus, the information could be viewed as irrelevant to her — except to whether the website is complying with the law. Has she suffered a concrete and particularized injury in fact to have standing to sue in federal court? Contrary to the district court’s thinking, we think the answer is yes. We further conclude that Laufer has standing to pursue injunctive relief and that the case is not moot.
This furthered a “circuit split.” The 11th Circuit appears to agree with the above, while the 2nd, 5th, and 10th have said there is no standing. The question presented for the Court is:
Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.
This is the only case set for argument today. The US has asked to participate in arguments (that motion was filed just a few days before this post but will almost certainly be granted), so expect the session to run even longer than usual.
The Court is closed on Monday, October 9 for Columbus/Indigenous Peoples Day.
Tuesday, October 10
The first two-argument day of the term.
First up is Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, which is about the burden of proof in a whistleblower case brought under the Sarbanes Oxley Act (securities fraud).
Murray was a strategist at UBS. Part of his job included preparing reports that SEC regulations required to be independent and reflective of his own views. He complained to his supervisors repeatedly that he felt pressured to alter his reports, and then was fired. He then filed suit under the Sarbanes Oxley Act’s whistleblower protection provision, which prohibits publicly traded companies from “discriminat[ing] against an employee … because of” any lawful whistleblowing act. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a).
Murray prevailed at trial after the jury was instructed that Murray needed to prove 4 things: he engaged in protected activity, the employer knew that, he was fired, and — crucially — “that plaintiff’s protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment.”
The Second Circuit held that was not enough, and that the jury should also have been instructed that Murray needed to prove that UBS acted with “retaliatory intent—i.e. , an intent to ‘discriminate against an employee … because of’ lawful whistleblowing activity.” This is a split with two other Circuits (5th and 9th), which held that a plaintiff need only prove that the protected activity was a contributing factor in the decision to terminate.
The Court has accepted a “question presented” that puts this more as a matter of civil procedure — who must prove what and when:
Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
Public Citizen has a useful amicus brief that relies heavily on the burden-shifting framework that Congress specified for filling such cases with the Department of Labor. Under 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(2)(B), the complaint must show that the protected activity “was a contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action,” but the investigation can then be stopped if “the employer demonstrates, by clear and convincing evidence, that the employer would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the absence of that behavior.”
Today’s second case, Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., is rather esoteric:
Whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced
In contract law in general (not just under admiralty law), the parties’ contractual agreement can be set aside by a court as void as against public policy. In this case, the insurance company brought suit in Pennsylvania (where the policy had been issued), seeking a declaration that it did not have to pay for damages when a yacht ran aground because its fire-extinguishing system had not been properly inspected as the owners had claimed when they took out the policy, rendering the policy void ab initio even though the damages had nothing to do with fire. The owners counter-sued, advancing claims under Pennsylvania consumer protection laws for insurance bad faith. If the contract’s choice-of-law provision is enforceable, New York law applies to the entire dispute so those counter-claims based on Pennsylvania law would have to be dismissed. But if Pennsylvania has a strong public policy interest in seeing its laws against insurance bad faith enforced, does that mean the choice-of-law agreement is unenforceable? So although an admiralty case is not normally one I’d recommend to a casual observer, this could be an interesting argument.
Wednesday, October 11 — Gerrymandering
This is an extraordinarily important case asking whether a gerrymandered election district is based on race or politics. In 2019 in Rucho v. Common Cause, the Supreme Court held that federal courts cannot concern themselves with partisan gerrymandering. Of course, racial gerrymandering remains unlawful under the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments.
In this case, South Carolina claims that the Republican-controlled legislature re-drew congressional districts to “create a stronger Republican tilt” in a district. The map they drew moved tens of thousands of Black voters out of a district, and a 3-judge panel found that “race was the predominant factor motivating the General Assembly’s adoption of Congressional District No. 1.” Before the Supreme Court, South Carolina argues that the lower court’s decision “rested on nothing but the correlation between race and politics” and cautions that “courts could always purport to infer racial predominance or a racial target from lines that correlate with both race and politics—and thereby insert themselves into political disputes under the guise of enforcing the Constitution’s prohibition on racial gerrymandering.”
The case has received a great deal of attention, so I won’t write more. In addition to the panel’s ruling above, I’ll direct you to an interesting Politico story that includes a piece about Rep. Clyburn’s possible role. And I strongly recommend reviewing the NAACP’s brief before taking in the argument.