Supreme Court approaches the end of the October 2019 Term

The Supreme Court currently has two remaining decision days scheduled, Monday, June 29 and Tuesday, June 30. The term will almost certainly be extended several days into July. It is not the custom of the court to dump a ton of decisions in a couple of days.

Remaining cases

October, November and December sittings:

No cases remaining.

January sitting:

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195 [Arg: 1.22.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.

February sitting:

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 19-7 [Arg: 3.3.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers; and (2) whether, if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, 12 U.S.C. §5491©(3) can be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act.

Russo v. June Medical Services LLC, No. 18-1460 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a “close” relationship with their patients and a “hindrance” to their patients’ ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable – per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits – or non-waivable per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits.

June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, No. 18-1323 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt .

March and April sittings:

Cancelled.

May sitting

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46 [Arg: 5.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, when the Lanham Act states generic terms may not be registered as trademarks, the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark.

U.S. Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, No. 19-177 [Arg: 5.5.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether - when in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc. , the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars enforcement of Congress’ directive, which required respondents, United States-based organizations that receive federal funds to fight HIV/AIDS abroad, to “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” as a condition of accepting those funds - the First Amendment further bars enforcement of that directive with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with respondents.

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., No. 19-631 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court; and (2) whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.

Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to creditors for President Donald Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465 [Arg: 5.13.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether enforcement of a Washington state law that threatens a fine for presidential electors who vote contrary to how the law directs is unconstitutional because a state has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot and a state penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment.

Colorado Department of State v. Baca, No. 19-518 [Arg: 5.13.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing state from casting an electoral-college ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing state because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion; and (2) whether Article II or the 12th Amendment forbids a state from requiring its presidential electors to follow the state’s popular vote when casting their electoral-college ballots.

11 cases remaining, but since several cases are consolidated, actually waiting on 8 decisions.

The Supreme Court has only officially added Monday, July 6 at this point, but I think July 7 & 8 will be needed to wrap up the term, which would be the latest term ending date in many years.

Everything left is from the special May sitting.

October, November, December, January and February sittings:

No cases remaining.

March and April sittings:

Cancelled.

May sitting:

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., No. 19-631 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court; and (2) whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.

Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to creditors for President Donald Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465 [Arg: 5.13.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether enforcement of a Washington state law that threatens a fine for presidential electors who vote contrary to how the law directs is unconstitutional because a state has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot and a state penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment.

Colorado Department of State v. Baca, No. 19-518 [Arg: 5.13.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing state from casting an electoral-college ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing state because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion; and (2) whether Article II or the 12th Amendment forbids a state from requiring its presidential electors to follow the state’s popular vote when casting their electoral-college ballots.

Tomorrow could be the final day of the term. If not, perhaps Friday or Monday.

5 cases left, but the last 2 are consolidated, so actually waiting on 4 decisions.

I believe the Supreme Court, as consistent as it has been lately on religious liberty, will rule in favor of Trump in Trump v. Pennsylvania.

Hard to say how they will rule in McGirt. A decision for McGirt essentially hands the eastern half of Oklahoma back to the Indians. :smile:

As for the Trump records cases, I won’t even hazard a guess.

Everything left is from the special May sitting.

May sitting:

Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to creditors for President Donald Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.

I swear your threads deserve their own category to make them easy to find. Always so informative.

Totally agree the most informative poster of all. Keep it up @Safiel

So it looks like the Muscogees just got half of Oklahoma back, for certain purposes…

I posted a thread just moments after your posted that. :smile:

It is going to go well beyond just criminal issues.