I thought we might get at least one of the high profile cases decided today, but no.
3 decisions this morning, no Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General and 5 new cases granted for consideration next term.
24 argued cases now await decision, with only two scheduled decision days remaining in the term, Monday, June 17 and Monday, June 24. The court did not add an extra decision day this week. It is almost certain that we will get at least one extra decision day next week and certain that we will get one or more extra decision days the final week, as the Supreme Court rarely issues more than 6 decisions in a single day.
Link to today’s order list. Besides the 5 granted cases, there is a statement from Justice Breyer respecting the denial of a petition by a Guantanamo detainee regarding the Constitutionality of indefinite detention.
The five new cases:
Issues : (1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with remedies the Environmental Protection Agency ordered is a jurisdictionally barred “challenge” to the EPA’s cleanup under 42 U.S.C. § 9613 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; (2) whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a “potentially responsible party” that must seek EPA approval under 42 U.S.C. § 9622(e)(6) of CERCLA before engaging in remedial action, even if the EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup; and (3) whether CERCLA pre-empts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies. CVSG: 04/30/2019.
Issues : (1) Whether a district court’s determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo, as seven circuits have held, under a deferential version of de novo review, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit has held, or under clear-error review, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 6th Circuits have held; and (2) whether, when an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, a subjective agreement between the infant‘s parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.
Issues : (1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted; and (2) whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma requires resentencing.
Issue : Whether the three-year limitations period in Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which runs from “the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation,” bars suit when all the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendants more than three years before the plaintiff filed the complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information.
Issue : Whether a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fails in the absence of but-for causation.
The three decided cases:
Holding : Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion statute substantially corresponds to or is narrower than generic burglary for purposes of qualifying for enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Judgment : Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh on June 10, 2019. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
Holding : The federal government is not a “person” capable of petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
Judgment : Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on June 10, 2019. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined.
Holding : Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, when federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf.
Judgment : Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 10, 2019.