Month: January 2024

The big Chevron deference cases are at the end of this block of arguments, but the Court will first hear cases on immigration procedure, mootness in the context of civil rights and the No-Fly list, the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, the confrontation clause for expert testimony, and the takings clause.

Monday, January 8

First up is an immigration procedure question with another grammar kicker! When initiating deportation proceedings, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires the government to serve a “notice to appear” that includes the time and place of the hearing. 8 U.S.C. § 1229. According to the petition, “[f]or years,” the government has instead served an initial notice that does not include the time and place but rather “supplies that information in a standalone ‘notice of hearing’ that it serves later — at times, years later.”

If correct procedures are followed, then the individual’s failure to appear results in a default judgment and order of removal. Paragraph (1) of the relevant section requires the “notice to appear” to include the time and place; paragraph (2) requires a separate document “in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place”; and a separate section provides that the order of removal can be rescinded if “the alien did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2).”

A group of linguists filed an amici brief arguing that “[f]rom a linguistic standpoint, the negative
disjunction ‘not A or B’ is ambiguous between two literal semantic interpretations. First, it can be
interpreted as [neither A nor B]. We will call this the neither-nor interpretation. . . . Second, the negative disjunction ‘not A or B’ can be interpreted as [either not A or not B]. Here we refer to this interpretation as the either-or interpretation.” They ultimately argue that “regardless of how the rescission condition is disambiguated, the plain text of the condition provides insufficient support for the Government’s understanding of the condition.”

Today’s argument covers two cases, Campos-Chaves v. Garland and Garland v. Singh, the later of which involves two parties. But the Court has consolidated the cases for one hour of argument total and denied the request for divided argument that would have allowed counsel for all 3 noncitizens to present separate arguments. So I would expect the “one hour” argument to run the now-usual two hours (or so), but not longer.

The second case involves the No-Fly list and a rather horrifying set of background facts, but the legal issue concerns the more procedural standard for mootness. In FBI v. Fikre, a US citizen was stranded in Sudan when placed on the No-Fly list after he refused to become an FBI informant, after which he was imprisoned and tortured in the UAE. He eventually managed to return to the US and brought suit against the FBI. (All these facts are compellingly summarized on this scotusblog article.)

But the Court has accepted cert. only on “Whether respondent’s claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are moot given that he was removed from the No Fly List in 2016 and the government provided a sworn declaration stating that he ‘will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information.'” The 9th Circuit held that this assurance is not enough to moot the case, because the government instead would have to make it “absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.”

Tuesday, January 9

The Court considers the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California. That doctrine prohibits the government from denying a benefit in a way that infringes a constitutional right and is usually thought of in the First Amendment context. However, as Oyez explains, “The U.S. Supreme Court in Nollan (1987) and Dolan (1994) recognized that land-use permit applicants ‘are especially vulnerable to the type of coercion that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine prohibits.’ Under those cases, the government may condition approval of a land-use permit on the owner’s dedication of property to public use if the government can prove that an ‘essential nexus’ and ‘rough proportionality’ exist between the demanded property and the impacts of the owner’s project.” This case challenges the county’s “Traffic Impact Mitigation (TIM) Fee Program” imposed on certain building permits.

The second case today involves retrospective refunds of Bankruptcy fees, and is not one I’d recommend to the casual observer.

Wednesday, January 10

The only case today involves the confrontation clause in the context of expert witnesses. In Smith v. Arizona, Smith was convicted of possession of marijuana but the substance was established to be marijuana on the basis of testimony from an expert who did not perform any tests on the substance but only relied on the reports of another expert who did not testify. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, noting that the defendant could have called the expert who performed the tests himself. The Innocence Network and others offer an interesting amici brief noting that “[t]he misapplication of forensic science is one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions, present in 24% of proven exonerations,” and arguing that “[f]oregoing a cross-examination requirement of the original analyst prevents the criminally accused from being able to reveal the fraud, bias, or error that may have tainted the evidence against them.”

[The Court is closed on Monday, January 15 in observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day]

Tuesday, January 16

The first case today is a technical issue involving pleading standards for lawsuits based on violations of SEC regulations, and is not one recommended for the casual observer.

Next up is a takings clause case — challenging a 5th Circuit decision that many observers found rather bizarre (e.g. this ABA Journal piece). Many constitutional rights are vindicated by filing suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which authorizes a lawsuit for deprivations of rights under color of law. However, states themselves are not subject to suit under § 1983. And in this case, Texas argued that landowners cannot bring suit directly under the Fifth Amendment — and the Fifth Circuit agreed, rather summarily reversing a magistrate’s ruling that noted that Texas’s position would “eviscerate[] hundreds of years of Constitutional law in one fell swoop.” The Court has accepted cert. on “Whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress under the self-executing takings clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action.”

Wednesday, January 17 — Chevron Deference

These are the heavily anticipated cases (Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) with huge potential to disrupt the power of executive agencies and the role of the administrative state, by reconsideration of Chevron deference.

A very brief primer: Congress often passes laws with broad policy positions and some directly enforceable language, but then empowers administrative agencies to adopt specific regulations to implement those laws. For example, Congress can’t approve every new pharmaceutical or respond to every newly identified environmental or health hazard, so it sets broad standards and empowers the FDA, EPA, CPSC, OSHA, and other agencies to do so. But when are those statutory standards violated, and how much leeway does the agency have to make that call and set regulations to implement them? Does the release of 3 ppm of chemical compound X violate the Clean Water Act, or should it be okay to discharge 5 ppm? Under “Chevron deference,” when the Congressional language is “ambiguous,” courts defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it is “reasonable.”

In recent years, more and more members of the Court have questioned the role and power of administrative agencies. In two cases set for argument today, the Court has signaled an interest in taking on the fundamental question: “Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.”

These are incredibly important cases but it won’t be easy to follow the arguments; the issue is easy to understand in principle, but much more difficult when you try to actually draw lines and deal with implications. The organization that was part of the original Chevron case has an interesting and readable article. Also, an amici brief from administrative law professors might provide helpful background to understanding the arguments. And finally, I strongly recommend you consider this perspective on the implications for civil rights laws.

There are two cases with the same “question presented” but they have not been consolidated for oral arguments. Expect this one to run very long (I’m guessing at least 3 and probably more like 4 hours).