A Homestretch Watch ListBetween now and the end of June, the justices are expected to publish opinions in more than half of the 71 argued cases (consolidated cases counted as one) in the current term. The large number is no surprise.
Despite Chief Justice
John Roberts Jr.'s hopes early in his tenure to front-load oral arguments so the writing periods in May and June are not so onerous, the docket and the justices' individual writing paces rarely make that possible.
New York federal defender
Sarah Baumgartel might be feeling a little angst over the outcome of her argument against Deputy Solicitor General
Jeffrey Wall in Gundy v. United States. The Gundy case is the oldest argument pending decision. The justices heard those
arguments on the term's second day—Oct. 2.
Baumgartel, representing Herman Gundy, argued that Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by giving the attorney general "unguided discretion" to apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act to persons convicted of a sex offense before the law's enactment.
Gundy is one of the cases we'll be waiting for in the weeks ahead. With the understanding that nearly every term has a "sleeper" that can become a major decision, here are other cases on our end-of-term watch list:
>> Kisor v. Wilkie: Will the justices use this veteran's case to
overturn so-called Auer deference to agencies' interpretations of their ambiguous regulations?
>> U.S. Department of Commerce v. New York: the term's most high-profile case asks whether a district court erred in blocking a citizenship question from appearing on the 2020 census. The court heard
arguments last month.
>> Rucho v. Common Cause/ Lamone v. Benisek: Will the justices articulate a test for determining when partisan gerrymanders violate the Constitution? Justices Elena Kagan and Niel Gorsuch
showed how far apart the court might be.
>> American Legion v. American Humanist Association: Does a 93-year-old WWI memorial cross violate the First Amendment? Walter Dellinger and Martin Lederman
offered the court a middle path in an amicus brief.
>> Apple v. Pepper: Consumers who purchased apps from Apple want to sue the tech giant for antitrust damages, but can they sue Apple or the app developers? The Justice Department was on Apple's
side.
>> Iancu v. Brunetti: Does the Lanham Act’s ban on federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks, such as FUCT, violate the First Amendment? The justices, and advocates,
couldn't bring themselves to say the trademarked name.
>> Gamble v. United States: Will the high court overrule the "separate sovereigns" exception to the double jeopardy clause? Kagan threw some
originalism shade at her colleagues during the argument.
>> Carpenter v. Murphy: Is the eastern half of Oklahoma a Creek Nation reservation?
>> Tennessee Wine & Spirits Association v. Blair: Does the 21st Amendment allow states to impose in-state residency requirements of specific duration for the granting of retail and wholesale liquor licenses?
Take a spin: Here's a "cocktail-by-cocktail" history of Supreme Court eras.
>> Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media: Does the word “confidential” in the Freedom of Information Act mean that government can only withhold data that would cause competitive harm to businesses?
Comments
Post a Comment