I went through the Supreme Court Docket and picked out the ones I thought could have a major impact on social, political and constitutional issues.\u00a0 This will be a very important year for a whole host of issues that conservatives are very interested in.\u00a0 We will find out if Roberts is an enemy.<\/p>\n
The issues include:<\/p>\n
Below is the list of the relevant cases.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
October Term 2019<\/strong><\/p>\n October Sitting<\/u><\/p>\n R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination \u201cbecause of . . . sex\u201d within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-2.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination \u201cbecause of . . . sex\u201d encompasses discrimination based on an individual\u2019s sexual orientation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Kansas v. Garcia, No. 17-834 [Arg: 10.16.2019 Trans.\/Aud.; Decided 3.3.2020]<\/p>\n Holding: The Kansas statutes under which respondents were convicted are not preempted expressly or by implication under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n November Sitting<\/u><\/p>\n Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 [Arg: 11.4.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be \u201crender[ed] … inadmissible\u201d for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1229b(d)(1).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260 [Arg: 11.6.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS\u2019s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS\u2019s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n McAleenan v. Vidal, No. 18-589 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS\u2019s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, No. 18-1171 [Arg: 11.13.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981 fails in the absence of but-for causation.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n December Sitting<\/u><\/p>\n <\/p>\n New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, No. 18-280 [Arg: 12.2.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether New York City\u2019s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, No. 17-1498 [Arg: 12.3.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): (1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with remedies the Environmental Protection Agency ordered is a jurisdictionally barred \u201cchallenge\u201d to the EPA\u2019s cleanup under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 9613 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; (2) whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a \u201cpotentially responsible party\u201d that must seek EPA approval under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 9622(e)(6) of CERCLA before engaging in remedial action, even if the EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup; and (3) whether CERCLA pre-empts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Ovalles v. Barr, No. 18-1015 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether the criminal alien bar, 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1252(a)(2)(C), tempered by 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1252(a)(2)(D), prohibits a court from reviewing an agency decision finding that a movant lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes, notwithstanding the lack of a factual dispute.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, No. 18-776 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether a request for equitable tolling, as it applies to statutory motions to reopen, is judicially reviewable as a \u201cquestion of law.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n January Sitting<\/u><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882 [Arg: 1.15.2020 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any \u201cdiscrimination based on age,\u201d 29 U.S.C. \u00a7633a(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195 [Arg: 1.22.2020 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n February Sitting<\/u><\/p>\n <\/p>\n U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 [Arg: 2.25.2020 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n 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. \u00a7 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether, notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, No. 19-161 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether, as applied to the respondent, 8 U.S.C. \u00a7 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the suspension clause.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, No. 18-1323 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit\u2019s decision upholding Louisiana\u2019s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court\u2019s binding precedent in Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Hellerstedt.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Russo v. June Medical Services LLC, No. 18-1460 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans.\/Aud.]<\/p>\n 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 \u201cclose\u201d relationship with their patients and a \u201chindrance\u201d to their patients\u2019 ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable \u2013 per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits \u2013 or non-waivable per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n March Sitting<\/u><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956 [Arg: 3.24.2020]<\/p>\n Issue(s): (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner\u2019s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71 [Arg: 3.24.2020]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000bb, permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309 [Arg: 3.25.2020]<\/p>\n Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a \u201cbare majority\u201d on the state\u2019s three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the \u201cother major political party\u201d; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring that no more than a \u201cbare majority\u201d of three of the state courts may be made up of judges affiliated with any one political party is not severable from a provision that judges who are not members of the majority party on those courts must be members of the other \u201cmajor political party,\u201d when the former requirement existed for more than 50 years without the latter, and the former requirement, without the latter, continues to govern appointments to two other courts; and (3) whether the respondent, James Adams, has demonstrated Article III standing.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n U.S. Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, No. 19-177 [Arg: 3.25.2020]<\/p>\n 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\u2019 directive, which required respondents, United States-based organizations that receive federal funds to fight HIV\/AIDS abroad, to \u201chave a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking\u201d 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438 [Arg: 3.30.2020]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 [Arg: 3.31.2020]<\/p>\n Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president\u2019s personal records, demanding production of nearly 10 years\u2019 worth of the president\u2019s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715 [Arg: 3.31.2020]<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760 [Arg: 3.31.2020]<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 [Arg: 4.1.2020]<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348 [Arg: 4.1.2020]<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n April Sitting<\/u><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465 [Arg: 4.28.2020]<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Colorado Department of State v. Baca, No. 19-518 [Arg: 4.28.2020]<\/p>\n 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\u2019s popular vote when casting their electoral-college ballots.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454 [Arg: 4.29.2020]<\/p>\n 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\u2019 decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules \u2013 which were issued after notice and comment \u2013 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.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431 [Arg: 4.29.2020]<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I went through the Supreme Court Docket and picked out the ones I thought could have a major impact on social, political and constitutional issues.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[1154,576,131,606],"class_list":["post-10170","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-current-events","tag-conservative-supreme-court","tag-scotus","tag-supreme-court","tag-the-culture-war"],"yoast_head":"\n