epa – Prof. Zachary Wolfe, Esq.

First Monday and October 2024 cases

August 9, 2024August 9, 2024case suggestionsLeave a Comment

Each Supreme Court term begins on the “First Monday” in October. The Court typically hears cases on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of two weeks in each month (more or less) until May, issues final decisions, then goes on summer recess beginning in late June or early July.

The first block of arguments starts with some procedural issues but then hears cases concerning regulation of “ghost guns,” prosecutorial misconduct in death penalty cases, RICO damages, immigration procedure, and veterans benefits before wrapping up with a major Clean Water Act case. Summaries are below.

See the other pages for tips on attending in-person or listening online. I will offer posts highlighting November and later argument sessions some time after the first block of arguments days are complete.

First Monday, October 7

The term begins with issues that will be somewhat difficult for the casual observer to follow — important, but resting on rather arcane procedural doctrines.

First up is Williams v. Washington, considering “whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.” Section 1983 was originally enacted during Reconstruction and allows individuals to sue for deprivation of rights “under color of law.” In other words, you can sue the person who used the power of their office to violate your federally protected rights. In this case, a group of applicants for unemployment benefits sued Alabama officials for delays in processing their applications. Alabama courts said they have to rely on the usual administrative filing and appeals processes and could not involve the courts at this stage. There is past precedent holding that federal courts can entertain § 1983 claims regardless of state administrative procedural obstacles, but the issue of whether federal law requires that state courts, also, must set aside state administrative procedural obstacles when someone brings a § 1983 claim in state court is unresolved. The Public Citizen amicus brief is a good source for understanding the broader significance of this issue.

Today’s second case, Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger, involves something commonly known as forum shopping. Plaintiffs chose where to file their suit initially, but if they pick state court then the defendants may “remove” it to federal court under certain conditions, including if there is a “federal question” (i.e., the suit requires consideration and application of federal law). In this case, that’s what happened — after a somewhat convoluted procedural history, but so far fairly standard. Unhappy with that result, the plaintiffs then amended their lawsuit to remove all references to federal law. So the question for the Court is, basically, can a plaintiff do that? This argument will be particularly challenging for a casual observer to follow, but the 8th Circuit decision is fairly readable. You might also be eased into the procedural minutia by the interesting underlying issue: they claim the pet food companies mislead them about prescription requirements!

Tuesday, October 8

An important gun regulation issue – specifically “ghost guns” (a.k.a. “firearms parts kits” or “privately made firearms”) – is up first today in Garland v. VanDerStok. Notably, this dispute also has an overlay of statutory interpretation and administrative rule making. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) empowers the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) to regulate “firearms,” as well as “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” 18 U.S.C. §921(a)(3). The GCA did not define “frame or receiver” and gun designs have changed over the years, so ATF has defined those terms and updated those definitions, most recently with a 2022 rule that would encompass kits and partially complete frames. NAAG offers a very useful and succinct overview of the history of this case and the parties’ arguments. I’ll also point out an interesting amici brief from linguistic scholars.

The official “question presented” is one of pure statutory interpretation: (1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act.

This framing of the question is noteworthy because, as recently as last term, there presumably would have been a question about whether the ATF had reasonably interpreted the ambiguous terms and incomplete definition in the underlying Congressional statute. But with the death of Chevron deference, it will be the Court deciding what the statue authorizes, without consideration of ATF expertise.

—

The second case involves a critical issue for lawyers – attorney fees! Certain civil rights laws provide for “fee shifting,” under which the prevailing party can require the other side to pay for their attorney fees. (The intent is to ensure that people with small monetary value claims can find representation. Without that, a contingency fee agreement for one-third of the damages for a few weeks’ of lost wages for a minimum wage worker might not be enough for a lawyer to take the case, no matter how egregious the unlawful suspension was or how important the case is to the discriminated-against employee.) In Lackey v. Stinnie, residents challenged a Virginia law that suspended their drivers licenses, obtaining a preliminary injunction pending trial. But then the legislature repealed the law before the case could go to trail. Is that enough to make them a prevailing party for purposes of attorney fee shifting?

The US Solicitor General has asked to participate in oral arguments, which means that there will likely be three arguing counsel (and thus more time devoted to oral arguments).

Wednesday, October 9

Just one case today, and it’s one of the more bizarre cases involving the death penalty and prosecutorial misconduct. Glossip v. Oklahoma involves a man who has been on death row for a 1997 murder (and was previously a named petitioner in a failed challenge to the method of execution). Today’s case comes after Oklahoma’s Attorney General acknowledged serious prosecutorial misconduct and false testimony in his original trial; the AG no longer supports his execution. But despite that, the Oklahoma courts have denied relief. The result is a highly unusual set of amici briefs (including from Ken Cuccinelli, Homeland Security Secretary under Trump) supporting Glossip, along with the relatively unusual appointment of a lawyer (a former clerk for CJ Roberts) to defend the state court ruling since the state AG will not. Scotusblog has a useful overview of the case.

[The Court is closed on Monday, October 14, in observance of Columbus / Indigenous Peoples Day]

Tuesday, October 15

RICO (the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) was created to go after organized crime, but it also provides that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of [unlawful RICO activity]” may sue in federal court and obtain treble damages and attorneys fees. 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The Court has clarified that the phrase “business or property” in the statute “exclud[es] … personal injuries.” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. Eur. Cmty., 579 U.S. 325, 350 (2016). But how to draw the line between personal injuries and other property losses? In today’s first case, Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, a commercial truck driver was injured and wanted alternative treatment, carefully reviewed CBD advertisements in light of his random drug testing requirements, but then failed a drug test. He then sued the marketers of the CBD oil he took, alleging they falsely advertised that it did not contain THC (which, independent lab tests confirmed, it did). Some circuit courts of appeal have held that lost wages are a form of “personal injury” that cannot be recovered in a RICO lawsuit. But in this case, the Second Circuit split with those other courts (and joined with the Ninth) in holding that wages are property and not personal injury (which instead describes “pain and suffering” and similar types of damages). So this case will resolve a “circuit split” as to “Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to ‘business or property by reason of’ the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.”

Today’s second case involves the rather byzantine issues of immigration procedure and discretionary decisions. Briefly, in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, a US citizen petitioned to have her non-citizen husband classified as an immediate relative. That petition was granted, but then revoked (based on an assertion that he had previously entered into a sham marriage). The Immigration and Nationality Act makes certain discretionary decisions unreviewable in the courts. The grant or denial of a petition is subject to clear standards and reviewable but, the government asserts and the courts so far have accepted, the decision to revoke the visa is discretionary and not reviewable. The district court “stated that an initial denial of a petition based on a marriage-fraud finding would be a reviewable, non-discretionary decision and expressed concern that there was a ‘loophole’ through which the Department ‘could evade judicial review by granting a visa petition it should have denied outright and then immediately revoking its approval'” but nevertheless dismissed Bouarfa’s case; the 11th Circuit affirmed. The Court has accepted cert. on “[w]hether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.”

Wednesday, October 16

The first case today involves veterans benefits and the benefit of the doubt rule on appeal. Veterans’ applications for disability and other benefits have long enjoyed the “benefit of the doubt rule,” so the vet’s claim should be approved if the evidence favoring granting or denying it are essentially balanced. In 2002, Congress extended this to appeals, requiring the Veterans Court to “review the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals . . . and shall take due account of the Secretary’s application of [the benefit-of-the-doubt rule].” Veterans’ Benefits Act, 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b). In Bufkin v. McDonough, the record contained some medical evaluations finding that Bufkin suffered from PTSD but others finding that he did not; the agency determined that the evaluations finding he did not suffer from PTSD were “more comprehensive” and “thus, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply here.” The Federal Circuit held that “if no issue that touches upon the benefit of the doubt rule is raised on appeal, the Veterans Court is not required to sua sponte review the underlying facts and address the benefit of the doubt rule.” Bufkin argues that this essentially nullifies the Veterans’ Benefits Act, and the court should have reviewed the entire record to ensure he received the benefit of the doubt at each stage of the proceedings (not just on appeal). See the overview here and the helpful amicus brief from the Fed Cir Bar Association.

Closing this term’s first block of arguments is a major Clean Water Act case, City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case concerns San Francisco’s “combined sewer system” that collects both sewage and stormwater runoff and can sometimes overflow into the ocean. It has long operated under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, as required by the Clean Water Act, but EPA issued a new permit in 2019. That latest permit uses “general narrative prohibitions,” which San Francisco complains (per a useful BloombergLaw article) is “trying to tell permit holders they can’t cause ‘too much’ pollution, but it isn’t telling us what ‘too much’ is.” In upholding the permit, the Ninth Circuit noted that the general narrative prohibitions simply prohibit discharges that “cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable water quality standard,” or “create pollution, contamination, or nuisance,” which the Circuit found to be sufficiently specific. The Court has accepted cert. on “Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.”

February cases

February 20, 2024case suggestions, commentaryLeave a Comment

Important cases in the last two weeks of February, including EPA regulations, social media moderation, and bump stocks.

Wednesday, February 21

The EPA’s Good Neighbor Plan is first up today in Ohio v. EPA and US Steel v. EPA. As the Congressional Research Service notes (in a report that would be very helpful to review) the Good Neighbor Provision of the Clean Air Act “requires upwind states to ensure that their emissions do not interfere with the ability of downwind states to meet federal air-quality standards.” The EPA now requires states to submit plans for how they will comply with that requirement. And as an equally helpful SCOTUSBlog preview notes, “Last February, the EPA rejected the plans submitted by 21 states that proposed no changes to their emissions plans. Instead, one month later, it published a federal plan for the states whose plans it had rejected, as well as two that had not submitted plans.” This comes in the context of a sense that several conservative members of the Court are suspicious of administrative agency powers, as was on display at the “Chevron deference” case argued last month.

Expect this argument to run very long. A total of one hour has been scheduled for primary argument, but there are four arguing counsel. After the primary argument time expires for each arguing counsel, each justice gets one more round of questioning.

Today’s second argument is on a technical procedural issue concerning the statute of limitations under the Copyright Act, in Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy. See a brief from EFF, American Libraries Association, and others.

Monday, February 26 — social media moderation

Exceedingly important cases today asking whether the state can, consistent with the First Amendment, regulate how social media companies moderate content on their platforms. Florida and Texas have each passed laws restricting social media companies, although who is protected from moderation is different. In brief, the Florida law provides that “[a] social media platform may not take any action to censor, deplatform, or shadow ban a journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast“ and “may not willfully deplatform” or prioritize or shadowban a candidate for public office. The Texas law more broadly prohibits “censor[ing] a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person” based on “viewpoint.”

The cases have received a great deal of attention so I will mostly just recommend the SCOTUSBlog preview. My own view is that there are strong reasons to doubt whether large social media companies are being responsible in the design and implementation of their products, but upholding the specific laws at issue in these cases will only make it harder to address the encroachment of hate speech, misinformation, and conspiracy theories that are substantial threats to the people’s ability to use social media for purposes that are key to free speech and a functioning democracy. For better or worse, large social media companies are the services from which Americans rent space for their “salon.” The public needs to be able to secure a venue from a provider who is not obligated to escort in guests who wish to insist that school shootings are “hoaxes,” even if that individual makes a living as a “journalist” or if the state might consider that a “viewpoint.”

The two cases (Moody v. Netchoice and Netchoice v. Paxton) have not been consolidated for argument, so expect arguments to run 3-4 hours.

Tuesday, February 27

Two technical issues today that I would not recommend for the casual observer.

McIntosh v. U.S. asks whether a district court may enter a criminal-forfeiture order outside the time limitations set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2.

Cantero v. Bank of America asks whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.

Wednesday, February 28 — bump stock ban and arbitration agreements

First up is an extremely important issue that is clearly summarized in the official question presented: whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires ‘automatically more than one shot … by a single function of the trigger.'” Vox has a very useful summary of the issues in Garland v. Cargill.

The final February case involves arbitration clauses. The Court has generally (but not uniformly) favored those pushing for greater ability to enforce contracts mandating arbitration, against a variety of challenges. Sometimes it is not clear whether the specific dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement. And sometimes, a contract will provide that questions about whether a dispute is subject to arbitration should be decided by the arbitrator rather than a judge (“delegate questions of arbitrability,” in the lingo). But what happens if the parties have agreed to multiple contracts, only the earlier of which clearly sends such questions to an arbitrator? Hence the issue today in Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski: “whether, where parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, an arbitrator or a court should decide whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation.”

February (& March 1-2) cases

February 21, 2022case suggestions

This month’s oral arguments have not received the attention of some earlier abortion and other high-profile cases, but involve a range of interesting and important issues. The case involving the EPA’s climate change authority, especially, deserves careful attention.

Tuesday, February 22

The cases today are two variations on Native American sovereignty issues. (Not consolidated; separate one-hour arguments.)

First up is Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, involving the tribe’s authority to conduct bingo and other gambling, notwithstanding Texas law. The Fifth Circuit described the dispute as centered on “which federal law governs the legality of the Pueblo’s gaming operations—the Restoration Act (which bars gaming that violates Texas law) or the more permissive Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (which ‘establish[es] … Federal standards for gaming on Indian lands’).” It held that because the “Restoration Act controls, the Pueblo’s gaming is prohibited.” But the Supreme Court’s characterization of the question presented is perhaps a bit revealing: “Whether the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act provides the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the act’s legislative history and the Supreme Court’s holding in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, or whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision affirming Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (Ysleta I) correctly subjects the Pueblo to all Texas gaming regulations.”

The second case, Denezpi v. United States, involves tribal sovereignty in the context of criminal law, and specifically double jeopardy. The Court has long held (and recently reaffirmed) that the Constitution’s prohibition on double jeopardy does not restrict prosecutions by different “sovereigns” — so the federal government is free to prosecute a person for the same conduct that already resulted in a state conviction (or acquittal). Thus the importance of the status of tribal courts, and the question presented in this case: “Whether the Court of Indian Offenses of Ute Mountain Ute Agency is a federal agency such that Merle Denezpi’s conviction in that court barred his subsequent prosecution in a United States district court for a crime arising out of the same incident.”

Both cases are nicely summarized here. There’s also an interesting amici brief on the criminal courts case from a group of “federal Indian law scholars and historians.”

Wednesday, February 23

An important administrative procedure case today, in the context of immigration law. Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco. Immigrants may be turned away, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, if they are likely to become a “public charge.” That term had long been understood to describe receipt of cash welfare benefits. The Trump Administration adopted a formal regulation that expanded “public charge” to include receipt of certain non-cash benefits, like Section 8 housing and SNAP benefits. Lawsuits challenged that rule, there were various provisional wins and losses for both sides at early stages of the litigation (the full history is set out here), but ultimately the Biden Administration came to power and announced that it would no longer defend the rule. It is not uncommon for new administrations to both decline to defend lawsuits and to embark on the process of formally rescinding or replacing regulations — which is a long and quite involved process. But in this case, according to the 9th Circuit:

the new administration didn’t just stop defending the prior administration’s rule and ask the courts to stay the legal challenges while it promulgated a new rule through the ordinary (and invariably time- and resource-consuming) process envisioned by the APA. Instead, together with the plaintiffs challenging the rule, it implemented a plan to instantly terminate the rule with extreme prejudice—ensuring not only that the rule was gone faster than toilet paper in a pandemic, but that it could effectively never, ever be resurrected, even by a future administration. All while avoiding the normal messy public participation generally required to change a federal rule. Not bad for a day’s work.
9th Cir.

Now, other states want to join the lawsuit to defend the Trump Administration rule. The Court has accepted cert. only on the question of “Whether states with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend.”

This is the only case scheduled for today. Expect the arguments to run long.

Monday, February 28 — EPA climate change authority

An important set of cases today concerning EPA’s authority, which has largely slipped under the mainstream radar. The Court has consolidated four cases against the EPA, brought by West Virginia, North Dakota, North American Coal Corp., and Westmoreland Mining Holdings.

Briefly, the issues began when Obama Administration enacted the Clean Power Plan, perhaps the country’s most ambitious effort to reduce carbon emissions. The regulations were immediately challenged as unconstitutional and beyond EPA’s authority. While the litigation was ongoing, the Trump Administration rescinded the plan and replaced it with the “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, but litigation continued. Then the Biden Administration has said it will not reinstate the Obama plan but rather will issue a new plan; it asked the Court to decline to hear this case and to instead address any challenges to the new rule after if is announced. However, the Court instead accepted cert. on “Whether, in 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act, Congress constitutionally authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rules — including those capable of reshaping the nation’s electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy — without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts and energy requirements.”

This is an exceedingly important case but the legal issues will be hard to follow. Start with this thorough and readable summary. Then take a look at the DC Circuit ruling and one or more of the vast array of amici briefs that have been filed in this case.

Tuesday, March 1

First up is a pair of consolidated cases (one hour total), Ruan v. United States and Kahn v. United States, involving the Controlled Substances Act and “pain management” practices. Doctors in both cases were convicted of prescribing opiates and other drugs in violation of the CSA (and sometimes for personal gain), but they assert the drugs were prescribed in a good faith belief that the prescriptions were appropriate. More here. Not the most sympathetic defendants, at least as described in the 11th Circuit decision, but some conservative and libertarian groups (e.g. Cato’s amicus brief) are lining up with others to defend the idea of a good faith defense.

The second case today, Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita, is a complex case involving “the scope of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA) as it relates to the treatment of patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD).” The arguments won’t be easy to follow, so see the explanation here.

Wednesday, March 2 — Scope of Bivens

Scotusblog offers a useful intro to the case today, Egbert v. Boule:

Fifty years ago, in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, the Supreme Court ruled that a private individual could sue a federal agent for violating his Fourth Amendment rights, even when there was not a specific law authorizing a claim for damages. In the nine years after Bivens, the court recognized Bivens claims for damages for violations of the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, but in 2017 it stressed that “expanding the Bivens remedy is now a disfavored activity.”
On Friday, the justices agreed to decide whether a Bivens remedy should be available to the owner of an inn on the U.S.-Canada border who alleges that a U.S. Border Patrol agent violated both his Fourth Amendment rights and his First Amendment rights. But the justices declined a request to reconsider Bivensitself.
Scotusblog

According to the 9th Circuit decision, Mr. Boule “operates and lives in a bed and breakfast in the state of Washington, on land which touches the United States-Canada border. Plaintiff alleged that a border patrol agent entered the driveway of plaintiff’s property to question arriving guests; used excessive force against plaintiff, and then, in response to plaintiff’s complaints, retaliated against plaintiff by, among other things, contacting the Internal Revenue Service, asking the agency to look into plaintiff’s tax status.”

It should be a very interesting argument. Take a look at the range of amicus briefs filed in this case — it’s not often we see the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and CAIR on the same side as libertarian groups like Institute for Justice and FIRE.