Supreme Court (10/19/20) - 3 Grants, 1 CVSG (1 of the grants is a Trump case)

Link to the order list for October 19, 2020.

The three grants are:

Issues : (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security policy known as the Migrant Protection Protocols is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)©; (2) whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulement obligations; (3) whether MPP is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking; and (4) whether the district court’s universal preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad.

Issue : Whether the pursuit of a person whom a police officer has probable cause to believe has committed a misdemeanor categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstance sufficient to allow the officer to enter a home without a warrant.

Issues: (1) Whether respondents have a cognizable cause of action to obtain review of the acting secretary of defense’s compliance with a proviso in Section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act that the secretary’s authority to transfer funds internally between DOD appropriations accounts “may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress”; and (2) whether in 2019 the acting secretary exceeded his statutory authority under Section 8005 by transferring approximately $2.5 billion in response to a request from the Department of Homeland Security for counterdrug assistance under 10 U.S.C. 284, including in the form of construction of fences along the southern border of the United States.

The Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in:

Issue : Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit improperly combined parts of two separate remedial sections under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, interpreting Section 502(a)(3) to permit reformation of a plan solely as a preparatory step to ultimate relief under Section 502(a)(1)(B) in the form of money damages.

There is a statement regarding denial of certiorari by Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, regarding knock and talk searches.

There is a dissent from denial of certiorari by Justice Thomas, who urges the Court to clean up the mess it made when it reinstated half of Oklahoma as an Indian Reservation.

I believe this was wholly unconstitutional. I’m really interested in this one, because of the precedent that could be established here.

1 Like

Lange and “knock and talk”.

Why is Trump suing the Sierra Club. I would expect that to be the other way round.

At the Supreme Court, the Petitioner’s name goes first, even if they were the defendant at the District Court. The Sierra Club was Plaintiff in the District Court, but is Respondent at the Supreme Court.

2 Likes

Will the Supreme Court still rule on the border wall funding case if Biden wins? Biden has stated that he stop border wall funding from Trump’s emergency once he becomes president.

If Biden wins (and presumably reverses Trump’s order), the case would be dismissed as moot.

Thank you

1 Like