The February sitting has a number of interesting arguments. Everybody is going to be laser focused on the abortion circus on the last day of this sitting, but the two cases the day before are equally as important. There is the outside chance the entire Dodd-Frank Act could be struck down, though I believe the Supreme Court will more narrowly restructure the CFPB. Liu vs SEC could impact the ability of the SEC to get adequate relief in cases of major security law violations.
And of course, we start off with the high profile cases regarding attempts to run gas pipelines under the Appalachian Trail.
Should be a quite interesting sitting.
First two cases are consolidated:
Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, No. 18-1587 [Arg: 2.24.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the United States Forest Service has the authority under the Mineral Leasing Act and National Trails System Act to grant rights-of-way through national-forest lands that the Appalachian Trail traverses.
U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, No. 18-1584 [Arg: 2.24.2020]
Issue(s): Whether the United States Forest Service has the authority to grant rights-of-way under the Mineral Leasing Act through lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail within national forests.
Issue(s): Whether, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann , the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively, thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A© against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute.
Issue(s): Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional.
Issue(s): Whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
Issue(s): Whether, as applied to the respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the suspension clause.
Issue(s): Whether, notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)©, the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 19-7 [Arg: 3.3.2020]
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.
Issue(s): Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may seek and obtain disgorgement from a court as “equitable relief” for a securities law violation even though the Supreme Court has determined that such disgorgement is a penalty.
Both cases consolidated:
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 .
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.