SCOTUS Audio

Latest Episodes:

New York v. New Jersey Mar 02, 2023

Show notes

May New Jersey unilaterally withdraw from the waterfront commission compact? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o156.html

Dept. of Education v. Brown Mar 01, 2023

Show notes

THE APPLICATION FOR STAY IS ALSO TREATED AS A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT, AND THE PETITION IS GRANTED. THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: (1) WHETHER RESPONDENTS HAVE ARTICLE III STANDING; AND (2) WHETHER THE DEPARTMENT’S PLAN IS STATUTORILY AUTHORIZED AND WAS ADOPTED IN A PROCEDURALLY PROPER MANNER. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-535.html

Biden v. Nebraska Mar 01, 2023

Show notes

(1) whether respondents have Article III standing, and (2) whether the plan exceeds the Secretary’s statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-506.html

Dubin v. United States Feb 27, 2023

Show notes

The federal aggravated identity theft statute provides: "Whoever, during and in relation to any felony violation enumerated [elsewhere in the statute], knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years." 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1). The question presented is whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time he mentions or otherwise recites someone else's name while committing a predicate offense. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-10.html

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh Feb 22, 2023

Show notes

Under Section 2333 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, as amended by the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, U.S. nationals injured by "an act of international terrorism" that is "committed, planned, or authorized by" a designated foreign terrorist organization may sue any person who "aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism," and recover treble damages. 18 U.S.C. § 2333(a), (d)(2). The questions presented are: 1. Whether a defendant that provides generic, widely available services to all its numerous users and "regularly" works to detect and prevent terrorists from using those services "knowingly" provided substantial assistance under Section 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more "meaningful" or "aggressive" action to prevent such use. 2. Whether a defendant whose generic, widely available services were not used in connection with the specific "act of international terrorism" that injured the plaintiff may be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1496.html

Gonzalez v. Google LLC Feb 21, 2023

Show notes

Section 203(c)(l) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an "interactive computer service" (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for "publish[ing] ... information provided by another" "information content provider" (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals' decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(l) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(l) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(l) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1333.html

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools Jan 18, 2023

Show notes

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) preserves the rights of children with disabilities to bring claims under the Constitution and other federal anti-discrimination statutes, so long as they exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures if their non-IDEA suit "seek[s] relief that is also available under [the IDEA]." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l). In the decision below, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of petitioner's claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act for failure to exhaust-even though that claim had been dismissed from petitioner's IDEA administrative proceedings, and even though petitioner had settled his IDEA claim with the school district to the satisfaction of all parties. The Sixth Circuit broke with eleven other circuits by holding that Section 1415(l)'s exhaustion requirement is not subject to a futility exception. The Sixth Circuit also held that Section 1415(l)'s exhaustion requirement applies even when the plaintiff is seeking money damages, a remedy that is not available under the IDEA. The questions presented are: 1. Whether, and in what circumstances, courts should excuse further exhaustion of the IDEA's administrative proceedings under Section 1415(l) when such proceedings would be futile. 2. Whether Section 1415(l) requires exhaustion of a non-IDEA claim seeking money damages that are not available under the IDEA. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-887.html

Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States Jan 17, 2023

Show notes

Whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441(d), 1602-1611. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1450.html

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, Att'y Gen. Jan 17, 2023

Show notes

After the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denied her application for withholding of removal, petitioner Leon Santos-Zacaria filed a petition for review. Although the government agreed that the court had jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit sua sponte dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), which requires a noncitizen to exhaust "all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right." This holding implicates two circuit splits, each of which independently warrants review. 1. Eight circuits hold that Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional. Two circuits disagree, holding that exhaustion may be waived. Multiple courts and judges have called for further review of this issue. The first question presented is: Whether Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims processing rule that may be waived or forfeited. 2. Further, petitioner's merits argument is that the BIA engaged in impermissible fact finding. In these circumstances, the Fifth Circuit, along with three other circuits, requires a noncitizen to file a motion to reopen or reconsider with the agency in order to satisfy Section 1252(d)(1)'s requirement that a noncitizen exhaust "remedies available * * * as of right." Two other circuits, recognizing that "[t]he decision to grant or deny a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the discretion of the Board" (8 C.F.R. § 1003.2) disagree. The second question presented is: Whether, to satisfy Section 1252(d)(1)'s exhaustion requirement, a noncitizen who challenges a new error introduced by the BIA must first ask the agency to exercise its discretion to reopen or reconsider. https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/21-1436.html

Financial Oversight Board v. CPI Jan 12, 2023

Show notes

It is a bedrock principle of federalism that a statute does not abrogate sovereign immunity unless Congress's intent to abrogate is "unmistakably clear'' in the statutory text. Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U.S. 223, 228 (1989). This Court and each of the other Circuits have held that a statute granting the federal courts jurisdiction over a category of claims without expressly addressing sovereign immunity does not abrogate. See, e.g., Blatchford v. Native Vill. of Noatak, 501 U.S. 775, 786 & n.4 (1991). The First Circuit nevertheless held, over a vigorous dissent, that 48 U.S.C. § 2126 (a) of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA)-which grants federal jurisdiction over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising out of PROMESA, but says nothing about abrogation-eliminates the Board's immunity in its totality. While acknowledging that the statutory language "may not be as precise" as other instances of abrogation, the court held that certain provisions "impl[y]" that result. It did so even though jurisdiction was necessary for those claims not subject to immunity. The Question Presented is: Does 48 U.S.C.§ 2126(a)'s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Board and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board's sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims? https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-96.html

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected