The High Court Report - SCOTUS Oral Arguments

Latest Episodes:

Oral Argument: Sheetz v. County of El Dorado | Case No. 22-1074 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 4/12/24 Jan 09, 2024

Show notes

Oral Argument: Sheetz v. County of El Dorado | Case No. 22-1074 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 4/12/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

George Sheetz applied, to the County of El Dorado, California, for a permit to build a modest manufactured house on his property. Pursuant to legislation enacted by the County, and as the condition of obtaining the permit, Mr. Sheetz was required to pay a monetary exaction of $23,420 to help finance unrelated road improvements. The County demanded payment in spite of the fact that it made no individualized determination that the exaction-a substantial sum for Mr. Sheetz bore an "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" to the purported impacts associated with his modest project as required in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391 (1994). Mr. Sheetz challenged the exaction as an unconstitutional condition under Nollan and Dolan. A California trial court upheld the exaction, holding that, because it was authorized by legislation, the exaction was immune from Nollan/Dolan review. In a published decision, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. California's judicially-created exemption from Nollan/Dolan scrutiny for legislative exactions conflicts with the decisions of other federal and state courts across the country, and is in strong tension with this Court's more recent precedents.

Question Presented: Whether a permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan and Dolan simply because it is authorized by legislation.

Holding: The Fifth Amendment's takings clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Paul J. Beard, II, Los Angeles, Cal.
For Respondent: Aileen M. McGrath, San Francisco, Cal.; and Erica L. Ross, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as Amicus Curiae.)

Oral Argument: United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC | Case No. 22-1238 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24 Jan 09, 2024

Show notes

Oral Argument: United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC | Case No. 22-1238 | Date Argued: 1/9/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Section 1004(a) of the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017, Pub. L. No.115-72, Div. B, 131 Stat. 1232 (28 U.S.C. 1930(a)(6)(B) (2018)), amended the schedule of quarterly fees payable to the United States Trustee in certain pending bankruptcy cases. In Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (2022), this Court held that that provision contravened Congress's constitutional authority to "establish * * * uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies," U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, Cl. 4, because it was initially applied only in the 88 federal judicial districts that have United States Trustees but not in the 6 districts that have Bankruptcy Administrators. This Court left open the question of "the appropriate remedy" for the violation. Siegel, 142 S. Ct. at 1783.

Question Presented: Whether the appropriate remedy for the constitutional uniformity violation found by this Court in Siegel, supra, is to require the United States Trustee to grant retrospective refunds of the increased fees paid by debtors in United States Trustee districts during the period of disuniformity, or is instead either to deem sufficient the prospective remedy adopted by Congress or to require the collection of additional fees from a much smaller number of debtors in Bankruptcy Administrator districts.

Holding: Prospective parity (i.e., requiring equal fees for otherwise identical Chapter 11 debtors going forward) is the appropriate remedy for the short-lived and small disparity created by the fee statute held unconstitutional in Siegel v. Fitzgerald.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. "Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas and Barrett joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Masha G. Hansford, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondents: Daniel L. Geyser, Dallas, Tex.

Oral Argument: FBI v. Fikre | Case No. 22-1178 | Date Decided: 1/8/24 | Date Decided: 3/19/24 Jan 08, 2024

Show notes

Oral Argument: FBI v. Fikre | Case No. 22-1178 | Date Decided: 1/8/24 | Date Decided: 3/19/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Individuals are sometimes removed from the No Fly List during ongoing litigation about their placement on that list. The Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held that an individual's removal from the No Fly List moots a case when the government represents that the individual will not be placed back on the list based on currently available information. In conflict with those decisions, the Ninth Circuit held in this case that Respondent's claims were not moot even though 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."

Question Presented: Whether Respondent's claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are moot.

Holding: The government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that Yonas Fikre's removal from the government's No Fly List mooted his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case because its declaration did not disclose the conduct that landed Fikre on the No Fly List and did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Gadeir Abbas, Washington, D.C.

Oral Argument: Campos-Chaves v. Garland | Case No. 22-674 | Date Argued: 1/8/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24 Jan 08, 2024

Show notes

Oral Argument: Campos-Chaves v. Garland | Case No. 22-674 | Date Argued: 1/8/24 | Date Decided: 6/14/24

Host Note: This case was consolidated with Garland v. Singh, Case No. 22-884.

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Immigration and Nationality Act provides that a noncitizen who does not appear at a removal hearing shall be ordered removed in absentia, but only if she was provided "written notice required under paragraph (l) or (2) of section 1229(a).'' 8 U.S.C. § 1229a (b)(5)(A). The Act authorizes rescission of an in absentia order if the noncitizen "did not receive notice in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a)." Id. § 1229a (b)(5)(C)(ii). Paragraph (1) of section 1229(a) requires a single notice document that contains all the information specified in the statute, including the "time and place" of proceedings. See Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 141 S. Ct. 1474, 1480-1485 (2021). Paragraph (2) requires notice of the "new time and place" "in the case of any change or postponement in the time and place of such proceedings."

Question Presented: If the government serves an initial notice document that does not include the "time and place" of proceedings, followed by an additional document containing that information, has the government provided notice "required under" and "in accordance with para- graph (1) or (2) of section 1229(a)" such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen's request to rescind that order?

Holding: Because each of the aliens in this case received a proper notice for the removal hearings they missed and at which they were ordered removed from the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), they cannot seek rescission of their in absentia removal orders on the basis of defective notice under Section 1229a(b)(5)(C)(ii).

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General: Charles L. McCloud, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Petitioner in 22-674 and Respondents in 22-884: Easha Anand, Stanford, Cal.

Oral Argument: Muldrow v. St. Louis | Case No. 22-193 | Date Argued: 12/6/23 | Date Decided: 4/17/24 Dec 06, 2023

Show notes

Oral Argument: Muldrow v. St. Louis | Case No. 22-193 | Date Argued: 12/6/23 | Date Decided: 4/17/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual" with respect to "compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). The Eighth Circuit below followed binding circuit precedent to hold that discriminatory job transfers (and denials of requested transfers) are lawful under Title VII when they do not impose "materially significant disadvantages" on employees.

Question Presented: Does Title VII prohibit discrimination as to all "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment," or is its reach limited to discriminatory employer conduct that courts determine causes materially significant disadvantages for employees?

Holding: An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh each filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Brian Wolfman, Washington, D.C.; and Aimee W. Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as Amicus Curiae.)
For Respondents: Robert M. Loeb, Washington, D.C.

Oral Argument: Moore v. United States | Case No. 22-800 | Date Argued: 12/5/23 | Date Decided: 6/20/24 Dec 05, 2023

Show notes

Oral Argument: Moore v. United States | Case No. 22-800 | Date Argued: 12/5/23 | Date Decided: 6/20/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Beginning with Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920), this Court's decisions have uniformly held "income," for Sixteenth Amendment purposes, to require realization by the taxpayer. In the decision below, however, the Ninth Circuit approved taxation of a married couple on earnings that they undisputedly did not realize but were instead retained and reinvested by a corporation in which they are minority shareholders. It held that "realization of income is not a constitutional requirement" for Congress to lay an "income" tax exempt from apportionment. App.12. In so holding, the Ninth Circuit became "the first court in the country to state that an 'income tax' doesn't require that a 'taxpayer has realized income.'" App.38 (Bumatay, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc).

Question Presented: Whether the Sixteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.

Holding: The Mandatory Repatriation Tax, "which attributes the realized and undistributed income of an American-controlled foreign corporation to the entity's American shareholders, and then taxes the American shareholders on their portions of that income" does not exceed Congress's constitutional authority.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: 7-2. Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined. Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Andrew M. Grossman, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Oral Argument: Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. | Case No. 23-124 | Date Argued: 12/4/23 | Date Decided: 6/27/24 Dec 04, 2023

Show notes

Oral Argument: Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. | Case No. 23-124 | Date Argued: 12/4/23 | Date Decided: 6/27/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants' consent.

Holding: The bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Curtis E. Gannon, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondents Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.: Gregory G. Garre, Washington, D.C.
For Respondents The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Purdue Pharma L.P., et al.: Pratik A. Shah, Washington, D.C.

Oral Argument: SEC v. Jarkesy | Case No. 22-859 | Date Argued: 11/29/23 | Date Decided: 6/27/24 Nov 29, 2023

Show notes

Oral Argument: SEC v. Jarkesy | Case No. 22-859 | Date Argued: 11/29/23 | Date Decided: 6/27/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment.
Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine.
Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.

Holding: When the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.

Result: Affirmed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Brian H. Fletcher, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
For Respondents: S. Michael McColloch, Dallas, Tex.

Oral Argument: McElrath v. Georgia | Case No. 22-721 | Date Argued: 11/28/23 | Date Decided: 2/21/24 Nov 28, 2023

Show notes

Oral Argument: McElrath v. Georgia | Case No. 22-721 | Date Argued: 11/28/23 | Date Decided: 2/21/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Georgia Supreme Court held that a jury's verdict of acquittal on one criminal charge and its verdict of guilty on a different criminal charge arising from the same facts were logically and legally impossible to reconcile. It called the verdicts "repugnant," vacated both of them, and subsequently held that the defendant could be prosecuted a second time on both charges.

Question Presented: Does the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibit a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was previously acquitted?

Holding: The jury's verdict that the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity of malice murder constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury's other verdicts.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. Justice Jackson filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion in which Chief Justice Roberts joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Richard A. Simpson, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Stephen J. Petrany, Solicitor General, Atlanta, Ga.

Oral Argument: Wilkinson v. Garland | Case No. 22-666 | Date Argued: 11/28/23 | Date Decided: 3/19/24 Nov 28, 2023

Show notes

Oral Argument: Wilkinson v. Garland | Case No. 22-666 | Date Argued: 11/28/23 | Date Decided: 3/19/24

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Attorney General has discretion to cancel removal of non-permanent residents who satisfy four eligibility criteria, including "that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to the applicant's immediate family member who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). Congress stripped courts of jurisdiction to review cancellation-of-removal determinations, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), but expressly preserved their jurisdiction to review "questions of law." Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). And as this Court has already held, this "statutory phrase 'questions of law' includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts"—that is, a "mixed question of law and fact." Guerrero-Lasprilla u. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068-69 (2020).

Question Presented: Whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D), as three circuits have held, or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as the court below and two other circuits have concluded.

Holding: The Immigration Judge's discretionary decision that Situ Kamu Wilkinson failed to satisfy 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D)'s "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard for determining eligibility for cancellation of removal is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(D)'s jurisdiction restoring exception for "questions of law"; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit's holding that the IJ's decision was unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) was in error.

Result: Reversed in part, Vacated in part, remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Jaime A. Santos, Washington, D.C.
For Respondent: Colleen R. Sinzdak, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

The High Court Report – SCOTUS Oral Arguments

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected