Mediaboss Marketing

RELIST WATCH ByJohn Elwood on Jan 12, 2022 at 3:35 pm

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

At this Fridays conference, the Supreme Court will vote to grant the last cases that will be argued this term (barring expedited briefing on some emergency matter). The court has an unusual number of relists this week, including an unusual number of cases that would be blockbusters if the court decides to take them. There are so many relists 17 cases, and thats if you only count a cluster of 33 (!) Oklahoma cases as a single case that I have to be extremely summary. Its like the long conference in January.

I could reach the limit of our Twitter-shortened attention spans just talking about relists that explicitly ask the Supreme Court to overrule its precedents. There are a pair of cases asking the court to invalidate Harvards and the University of North Carolinas affirmative action programs, and in the process overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, which upheld diversity-based affirmative action programs. The cases are Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 20-1199, and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, 21-707. The court earlier asked for the U.S. solicitor general to weigh in on the Harvard case; she recommended that the court deny review, saying that the challengers seek[] to relitigate case-specific factual disputes that both lower courts resolved against them and that the case would be a poor vehicle for reconsidering Grutter. Well see if the court is persuaded.

Then theres 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476, presenting a recurring question the court first confronted in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, about whether an artist (here, a website designer) can be compelled to perform work celebrating a same-sex wedding that is inconsistent with their sincerely held religious beliefs. The case also presents the question whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable underEmployment Division v. Smith, and if so, whether the Supreme Court should overruleSmith. (The court faced but did not decide the issue of whether to overrule Smith in last terms Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.)

Two terms ago, the Supreme Court held by a 5-4 vote in McGirt v. Oklahoma that Congress had not clearly disestablished a Creek Nation reservation covering much of eastern Oklahoma, and thus the area remained Native American territory for the purposes of a federal criminal law, eliminating the states ability to prosecute crimes there. With the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who provided a necessary vote to the McGirt majority, and the confirmation of her replacement, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the state is now asking the court to reverse itself. The state has 33 petitions pending in criminal cases asking that McGirt be overruled so many petitions they have two petitions just involving respondents named Jones, and another two with respondents named Martin. The state has designated Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 21-429, the lead petition, but if the court decides to grant review, it could choose a different vehicle. If the court grants review, it may want to ask the parties to brief the additional question whether Oklahoma was required to file an environmental impact statement in view of the sheer tonnage of paper filings.

Moving on to potential blockbusters that dont explicitly call on the court to overrule precedent. Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 21-454, is a long-running Clean Water Act dispute that has already been the subject of one major Supreme Court decision. The Sacketts are a husband and wife who are challenging the governments assertion of CWA authority over their home. They invoke Rapanos v. United States in which a splintered majority of the Supreme Court held that theCWA does not regulate all wetlands. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for a four-justice plurality, concluded that only wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to regulated waters may themselves be regulated under the act. Justice Anthony Kennedy concurred only in the judgment, applying a more fact-intensive (critics would say vague) significant nexus test. The Sacketts argue that the court should adopt the pluralitys narrower test as the governing standard.

There are also four cases challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978. Congress passed ICWA to respond to concerns that state child-welfare practices were causing large numbers of Native American children to be inappropriately removed from their families and tribes and placed with non-Native foster families or adoptive parents. ICWA established minimum federal standards for most child-custody proceedings involving Native American children. The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuitstruck down some provisions of ICWA as unconstitutional. According to the 5th Circuit, some provisions violate the 10th Amendment because they impermissibly commandeer the states. Those provisions, it concluded, include a requirement that state agencies bear the cost and burden of providing expert testimony to support placing Native children in foster care, a requirement that state agencies provide remedial services to Native families, and a requirement that state agencies maintain certain child-placement records.

The 5th Circuit also affirmed the district courts judgment that ICWAs preference for adoptive placement with other Indian families and Indian foster home[s] violates the equal-protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The 5th Circuit upheld other provisions of the act. The court has relisted a total of four petitions, two filed by the federal government and a group of Native American tribes seeking to revisit 5th Circuit holdings invalidating provisions, and two filed by the state of Texas and private challengers seeking to overturn parts of the 5th Circuit decision upholding other ICWA provisions. The petitions are Haaland v. Brackeen, 21-376, Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, 21-377, Texas v. Haaland, 21-378, and Brackeen v. Haaland, 21-380.

In January 2019, the Supreme Court denied apetition for certiorarifiled by a football coach at a public high school in Washington state who claimed that he lost his job because he prayed on the field after games. At that time, four justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh notedthat they concurred in the decision to deny review because the factual record was too undeveloped to grant preliminary relief to the coach, emphasizing that they did not necessarily agree with the decision (much less the opinion) below. Since then, the district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit have again rejected the coachs claims. InKennedy v. Bremerton School District, 21-418, Coach Kennedy is back, asking the justices to review whether his conduct is private and protected by the First Amendment.

California has enacted a number of laws over the years that regulate the sale of items ranging from foie gras to fuel based on the method of production that the state believes is too carbon-intensive. Challengers regularly argue that such laws violate so-called dormant commerce clause principles by discriminating against (or seeking to alter) disfavored out-of-state production methods. A number of challenges to such laws have reached the court over the years, but National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468, is the first one since 2014 (the foie gras case) that I can recall being relisted. California bans the sale of pork in the state unless the sow from which it was derived was housed with 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow the sow to turn around freely without touching her enclosure. Challengers argue that almost no farms satisfy those standards, and farmers almost universally keep sows in individual pens that do not satisfy those standards during the period between weaning and confirmation of pregnancy, for animal health and business reasons. Challengers argue that the law is impermissibly extraterritorial because virtually all the pork consumed in California is raised outside the state.

With that, we have to go into full Relist Watch Select mode if we are going to have any hope of ever getting through all these relists. The remaining relists raise the following issues. Each of them is fascinating on its own terms; I give them brief treatment only because there is such an embarrassment of riches this week.

Thats all for this week. Until next time, stay safe!

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 20-1199Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overruleGrutter v. Bollingerand hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violatingTitle VIof the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.CVSG: 12/8/2021(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, 21-707Issues: (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overruleGrutter v. Bollingerand hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Wisconsin v. Jensen, 21-210Issues: (1) Whether a persons statement expressing fear about a possible future crime is testimonial under the Sixth Amendments confrontation clause; and (2) whether, when a person reports ongoing psychological domestic abuse and expresses fear about future physical harm, the persons statement aimed at ending an ongoing emergency is non-testimonial.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

George v. McDonough, 21-234Issue: Whether, when the Department of Veterans Affairs denies a veterans claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, that is the kind of clear and unmistakable error that the veteran may invoke to challenge VAs decision.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Haaland v. Brackeen, 21-376Issues: (1) Whether various provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 namely, the minimum standards ofSection 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f); the placement-preference provisions ofSection 1915(a) and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions ofSections 1915(e)and1951(a) violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment; (2) whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge ICWAs placement preferences for other Indian families and for Indian foster home[s]; and (3) whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and therefore consistent with equal protection.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen, 21-377Issues: (1) Whether the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred by invalidating six sets of Indian Child Welfare Act provisions 25 U.S.C. 1912(a), (d), (e)-(f),1915(a)-(b), (e), and1951(a) as impermissibly commandeering states (including via its equally divided affirmance); (2) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by reaching the merits of the plaintiffs claims that ICWAs placement preferences violate equal protection; and (3) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by affirming (via an equally divided court) the district courts judgment invalidating two of ICWAs placement preferences, 25 U.S.C. 1915(a)(3), (b)(iii), as failing to satisfy the rational-basis standard ofMorton v. Mancari.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Texas v. Haaland, 21-378Issues: (1) Whether Congress has the power under the Indian commerce clause or otherwise to enact laws governing state child-custody proceedings merely because the child is or may be an Indian; (2) whether the Indian classifications used in theIndian Child Welfare Actand its implementing regulations violate the Fifth Amendments equal-protection guarantee; (3) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the anticommandeering doctrine by requiring states to implement Congresss child-custody regime; and (4) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the nondelegation doctrine by allowing individual tribes to alter the placement preferences enacted by Congress.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Brackeen v. Haaland, 21-380Issues: (1) Whether theIndian Child Welfare Act of 1978s placement preferences which disfavor non-Indian adoptive families in child-placement proceedings involving an Indian child and thereby disadvantage those children discriminate on the basis of race in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether ICWAs placement preferences exceed Congresss Article I authority by invading the arena of child placement the virtually exclusive province of the States, as stated inSosna v. Iowa and otherwise commandeering state courts and state agencies to carry out a federal child-placement program.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 21-418Issues: (1) Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection; and (2) whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the free speech and free exercise clauses, the establishment clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Nance v. Ward, 21-439Issues: (1) Whether an inmates as-applied method-of-execution challenge must be raised in a habeas petition instead of through a42 U.S.C. 1983action if the inmate pleads an alternative method of execution not currently authorized by state law; and (2) whether, if such a challenge must be raised in habeas, it constitutes a successive petition when the challenge would not have been ripe at the time of the inmates first habeas petition.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 21-454Issue: WhetherRapanos v. United States in which the Supreme Court held that theClean Water Actdoes not regulate all wetlands, but without a majority opinion explaining why that is so should be revisited to adopt the pluralitys test for wetlands jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act, in which only those wetlands that have a continuous surface water connection to regulated waters may themselves be regulated.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 21-468Issues: (1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in the Supreme Courts decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a claim underPike v. Bruce Church, Inc.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476Issues: (1) Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent, contrary to the artists sincerely held religious beliefs, violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment; and (2) whether a public-accommodation law that authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is generally applicable underEmployment Division v. Smith, and if so, whether the Supreme Court should overruleSmith.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Vega v. Tekoh, 21-499Issue: Whether a plaintiff may state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer under42 U.S.C. 1983based simply on an officers failure to provide the warnings prescribed inMiranda v. Arizona.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Shoop v. Twyford, 21-511Issues: (1) Whether federal courts may use the All Writs Act to order the transportation of state prisoners for reasons not enumerated in28 U.S.C. 2241(c); and (2) whether, before a court grants an order allowing a habeas petitioner to develop new evidence, it must determine whether the evidence could aid the petitioner in proving his entitlement to habeas relief, and whether the evidence may permissibly be considered by a habeas court.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Love v. Texas, 21-5050Issues: (1) Whether Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the only court of last resort reviewing direct appeals in death penalty cases, has decided an important federal question concerning a racially biased juror being allowed on a capital death penalty jury in violation of petitioner Kristopher Loves rights under the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (2) whether Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, the only court of last resort reviewing direct appeals in death penalty cases, has decided an important federal question concerning a racially biased juror in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the Supreme Court in violation of Loves rights under the Sixth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Oklahoma v. Brown, 21-251; Oklahoma v. Kepler, 21-252; Oklahoma v. Hathcoat, 21-253; Oklahoma v. Mitchell, 21-254; Oklahoma v. Jackson, 21-255; Oklahoma v. Starr, 21-257; Oklahoma v. Davis, 21-258; Oklahoma v. Howell, 21-259; Oklahoma v. Bain, 21-319; Oklahoma v. Perry, 21-320; Oklahoma v. Johnson, 21-321; Oklahoma v. Harjo, 21-322; Oklahoma v. Spears, 21-323; Oklahoma v. Grayson, 21-324; Oklahoma v. Janson, 21-325; Oklahoma v. Sizemore, 21-326; Oklahoma v. Ball, 21-327; Oklahoma v. Epperson, 21-369; Oklahoma v. Stewart, 21-370; Oklahoma v. Jones, 21-371 ; Oklahoma v. Cooper, 21-372; Oklahoma v. Beck, 21-373; Oklahoma v. Jones, 21-451; Oklahoma v. McCombs, 21-484; Oklahoma v. McDaniel, 21-485; Oklahoma v. Shriver, 21-486; Oklahoma v. Martin, 21-487; Oklahoma v. Fox, 21-488; Oklahoma v. Cottingham, 21-502; Oklahoma v. Martin, 21-608Issue: Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma should be overruled.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Oklahoma v. Williams, 21-265; Oklahoma v. Mize, 21-274; Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 21-429Issues: (1) Whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country; and (2) whether McGirt v. Oklahoma should be overruled.(relisted after the Jan. 7 conference)

Knight v. Pennsylvania, 20-7805Issue: Whether a state may require a defendant to present an IQ score of 75 or below that was documented prior to age 18 to have his intellectual disability claim considered as a basis to disqualify him from the death penalty, when this requirement is contrary to clinical standards for diagnosis and contrary to multiple decisions where the Supreme Court has granted relief to petitioners who lacked any such documentation.(relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Nov. 12, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan. 7 conferences)

Holcombe v. Florida, 21-53Issues: (1) Whether a criminal defendant establishes an actual conflict of interest that adversely affects counsels representation when the attorney engages in joint and dual representation i.e., simultaneously representing both the defendant and a key prosecution witness during a trial; (2) whether the presumed prejudice conflict of interest standard applies when the prosecutor (rather than defense counsel) puts the trial judge on notice at the beginning of a trial of defense counsels conflict of interest a conflict which is described by the prosecutor as not waivable and the judge thereafter fails to inquire into the nature and scope of the conflict.(relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Nov. 12, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan. 7 conferences)

Trustees of the New Life in Christ Church v. City of Fredericksburg, 21-164Issues: (1) Whether civil authorities violate the First Amendment when they engage in their own interpretation of church doctrine to overrule a churchs determination that a particular official is a minister and, if so, whether summary reversal is appropriate; (2) whether, in the alternative, the Supreme Court should grant, vacate, and remand in light ofFulton v. City of Philadelphia, because Virginia has enacted a system of individual exemptions to its property tax law, and the city may not refuse to extend that [exemption] system to [the Church] without compelling reason.(rescheduled before the Oct. 8 and Oct. 15 conferences; relisted after the Oct. 29, Nov. 5, Nov. 12, Nov. 19, Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan. 7 conferences)

Arrow Highway Steel, Inc. v. Dubin, 21-27Issues: (1) Whether the dormant commerce clause may be used to invalidate the application of a states neutral, non-discriminatory tolling statute to defeat the enforcement of a former residents stipulated judgment where there is no showing of any burden on or discrimination against interstate commerce; and (2) whether the dormant commerce clause applies to a state statute with no intended or demonstrated effect on interstate commerce.(relisted after the Dec. 3, Dec. 10, and Jan 7 conferences)

See the original post here:
Blockbuster watch: Affirmative action, same-sex weddings, and other big relists - SCOTUSblog