Two decision days next week, Tuesday June 21st and Thursday June 23rd.
Monday, June 27th is the scheduled last day of the term, but I think we will likely see it extended to Tuesday the 28th and possibly even Wednesday the 29th.
And I have this feeling the Supreme Court will lazily take its time and release abortion on the final day, just to show it doesn’t give a flying ■■■■ about the threats and protestors. The gun decision, which has been pending since all the way back in November, will likely come on the final or next to final day.
Lost behind abortion and guns, but equally high profile is a case that could effectively end “Blaine Amendment” laws in the United States.
The praying coach case and several other interesting cases are also pending.
Number of cases left by sitting and a list of pending cases.
October - 0
November - 1
December - 4
January - 1
February - 3
March - 2
April - 7
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843 [Arg: 11.3.2021 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the state of New York’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, No. 20-1312 [Arg: 11.29.2021 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether, for purposes of calculating additional payment for hospitals that serve a “significantly disproportionate number of low-income patients,” the secretary of health and human services has permissibly included in a hospital’s Medicare fraction all of the hospital’s patient days of individuals who satisfy the requirements to be entitled to Medicare Part A benefits, regardless of whether Medicare paid the hospital for those particular days.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 [Arg: 12.1.2021 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
U.S. v. Taylor, No. 20-1459 [Arg: 12.7.2021 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s definition of “crime of violence” excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
Carson v. Makin, No. 20-1088 [Arg: 12.8.2021 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction.
Concepcion v. U.S., No. 20-1650 [Arg: 1.19.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether, when deciding if it should “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018, a district court must or may consider intervening legal and factual developments.
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 20-1530 [Arg: 02.28.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): 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.
Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc., No. 20-1641 [Arg: 03.1.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether a group health plan that provides uniform reimbursement of all dialysis treatments observe the prohibition provided by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that group health plans may not “take into account” the fact that a plan participant with end stage renal disease is eligible for Medicare benefits; (2) whether a plan that provides the same dialysis benefits to all plan participants, and reimburses dialysis providers uniformly regardless of whether the patient has end stage renal disease, observe the prohibition under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that a group health plan also may not “differentiate” between individuals with end stage renal disease and others “in the benefits it provides”; and (3) whether the Medicare Secondary Payer Act is a coordination-of-benefits measure designed to protect Medicare, not an antidiscrimination law designed to protect certain providers from alleged disparate impact of uniform treatment.
Ruan v. U.S., No. 20-1410 [Arg: 03.1.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a physician alleged to have prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice may be convicted of unlawful distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good faith, he “reasonably believed” or “subjectively intended” that his prescriptions fall within that course of professional practice.
Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, No. 21-248 [Arg: 03.21.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether a state agent authorized by state law to defend the state’s interest in litigation must overcome a presumption of adequate representation to intervene as of right in a case in which a state official is a defendant; (2) whether a district court’s determination of adequate representation in ruling on a motion to intervene as of right is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion; and (3) whether petitioners Philip Berger, the president pro tempore of the state senate, and Timothy Moore, the speaker of the state house of representatives, are entitled to intervene as of right in this litigation.
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety, No. 20-603 [Arg: 03.29.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether Congress has the power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its constitutional war powers.
U.S. v. Washington, No. 21-404 [Arg: 04.18.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a state workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to federal contract workers who perform services at a specified federal facility is barred by principles of intergovernmental immunity, or is instead authorized by 40 U.S.C. § 3172(a), which permits the application of state workers’ compensation laws to federal facilities “in the same way and to the same extent as if the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of the State.”
Vega v. Tekoh, No. 21-499 [Arg: 04.20.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff may state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based simply on an officer’s failure to provide the warnings prescribed in Miranda v. Arizona.
Nance v. Ward, No. 21-439 [Arg: 04.25.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether an inmate’s as-applied method-of-execution challenge must be raised in a habeas petition instead of through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action 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 inmate’s first habeas petition.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, No. 21-418 [Arg: 04.25.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (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.
Shoop v. Twyford, No. 21-511 [Arg: 04.26.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether federal courts may use the All Writs Act to order the transportation of state prisoners for reasons not enumerated in 28 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.
Biden v. Texas, No. 21-954 [Arg: 04.26.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225 requires the Department of Homeland Security to continue implementing the Migrant Protection Protocols, a former policy under which certain noncitizens arriving at the southwest border were returned to Mexico during their immigration proceedings; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred by concluding that the secretary of homeland security’s new decision terminating MPP had no legal effect.
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429 [Arg: 04.27.2022 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a state has authority to prosecute non-Indians who commit crimes against Indians in Indian country.