Supreme Court is in a conundrum regarding Carpenter v Murphy, as the October 2019 argument calendar is set

The Supreme Court is muddling here with Carpenter v Murphy. Their failure to decide it last month, instead sending it back to the argument calendar, suggests they don’t like EITHER possible outcome and are instead trying to work with the parties to fashion the narrowest work a round possible. However, supplemental briefing from the parties suggests that may not be possible.

The case was not scheduled for the October sitting, so its clear that it could drag out for quite some time.

Here is the list of cases scheduled during the October sitting, some which are quite interesting, including the Puerto Rico Financial Board cases, a case regarding the insanity defense, requirements for unanimous jury verdicts and a case related to the D.C. Sniper case:

Kahler v. Kansas (Oct. 7): Whether the Constitution allows a state to abolish the insanity defense.

Peter v. NantKwest (Oct. 7): Whether an unsuccessful patent applicant who wants a federal district court to review the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of his patent must pay the expenses for USPTO employees, including attorneys.

Ramos v. Louisiana (Oct. 7): Whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a unanimous jury applies to the states.

Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express v. Zarda (consolidated for one hour of oral argument) (Oct. 8): Whether the federal ban on employment discrimination “because of sex” applies to discrimination based on sexual orientation.

R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC (Oct. 8): Whether federal employment discrimination laws prohibit discrimination against transgender people.

Financial Oversight Board v. Aurelius Investment , consolidated with Aurelius Investment v. Puerto Rico , Official Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment , United States v. Aurelius Investment and UTIER v. Financial Oversight Board (Oct. 15): Challenge to the constitutionality of appointments to Puerto Rico’s financial oversight board.

Kansas v. Garcia (Oct. 16): Whether federal immigration laws trump a state prosecution for identity theft.

Rotkiske v. Klemm (Oct. 16): Whether the statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is paused until the plaintiff discovers the basis for his lawsuit.

Mathena v. Malvo (Oct. 16): Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v. Alabama , holding that the Constitution’s bar on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles, applies only when life-without-parole sentences are mandatory.

One possibility regarding Carpenter v Murphy.

After all the briefing. The first set of oral arguments. The upcoming second set of oral arguments. More briefing yet to come.

After all that, it would not at all surprise me if this case ended with the Supreme Court dismissing the Writ of Certiorari as improvidently granted. That would result in the Tenth Circuit’s ruling standing.

Such a final outcome would not surprise me at all, given the progress of this case to this point.

They want an outcome they can’t get to legally?

They want an outcome that doesn’t hand half of Oklahoma back to the Indians. :smile:

The Congress back in 1907 may have ****** them in that regard, due to ambiguity in the series of statutes that lead to Oklahoma statehood. Congress failed to EXPLICITLY abolish the Indian Reservations, an oversight that has come back to haunt us 112 years later.

It is possible that the Supreme Court cannot reach the desired outcome, and Congress will be FORCED to act to abolish the Indian Reservations in Oklahoma so that the State of Oklahoma can exercise is full legal authority throughout the state.

Good luck with that with this House.

Hell, they should have half of it.