The Supreme Court finished up its last argument sitting on Wednesday and now enters the home stretch.
Orders are expected on Monday, April 30. No decisions will be issued, except possibly per curiams.
No conference on Thursday, May 3, and no orders or decisions on Monday, May 7.
Thereafter, conferences will be held every Thursday from May 10 to June 21, with an unscheduled “wrap up” conference likely to be held on June 28.
Orders and decisions are expected every Monday from May 14 to June 25, except for May 29 which is the Tuesday after Memorial Day.
Just listing the business pending all the way back from October, Hopefully, we will get both the labor arbitration cases and Gill decided in May.
It is pretty clear that Trump will likely be the very last decision released of the term.
<Note: The three labor arbitration cases were argued together and will all be decided together.>
National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, No. 16-307 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether arbitration agreements with individual employees that bar them from pursuing work-related claims on a collective or class basis in any forum are prohibited as an unfair labor practice under 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), because they limit the employees’ right under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in “concerted activities” in pursuit of their “mutual aid or protection,” 29 U.S.C. § 157, and are therefore unenforceable under the savings clause of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2.
Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, No. 16-300 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the collective-bargaining provisions of the National Labor Relations Act prohibit the enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act of an agreement requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis.
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether an agreement that requires an employer and an employee to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration, and waive class and collective proceedings, is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161 [Arg: 10.03.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin’s redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin’s redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court’s test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.