Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Jones v. Hendrix Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Nov 1, 2022.Decided on Jun 22, 2023. Petitioner: Marcus DeAngelo Jones.Respondent: Dewayne Hendrix. Advocates: Daniel R. Ortiz (for the Petitioner) Eric J. Feigin (for the Respondent, supporting affirmance) Morgan L. Ratner (court-appointed amicus curiae, supporting the judgment below) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) A jury convicted Marcus DeAngelo Jones of one count of making false statements to acquire a firearm and two counts of possessing a firearm as a felon. Jones appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Jones then filed a motion to vacate his sentence on the grounds that it was illegally imposed. The district court denied his motion, but the Eighth Circuit reversed, concluding that Jones’s counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the two felon-in-possession counts as duplicative. The district court vacated one of his felon-in-possession convictions and resentenced him. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, to convict someone under § 922(g), the government must prove that the defendant knew both that he had a prohibited status and that he possessed a firearm. Because Jones had been convicted of this offense without proof that he knew he had a prohibited status, he filed a habeas petition challenging his conviction. The district court dismissed his petition, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed. Question May a federal inmate who did not challenge their conviction on the ground that the statute did not criminalize their activity subsequently apply for habeas relief after the Supreme Court retroactively invalidates the circuit precedent on which the inmate relied in not challenging their conviction? Conclusion Section 2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (AEDPA) restrictions on second or successive §2255 motions by filing a §2241 habeas petition. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The majority first clarified the relationship between §2255 and §2241 in the context of federal prisoners challenging their sentences. Congress introduced §2255 to allow prisoners to challenge their sentences in the sentencing court, rather than through a habeas corpus petition under §2241. While the saving clause in §2255(e) preserved access to §2241 in specific situations, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) added restrictions on second or successive §2255 motions. The saving clause does not permit prisoners to circumvent AEDPA's restrictions, even if they are challenging a new interpretation of a criminal statute. The majority found unpersuasive arguments by both Jones and the federal government regarding when §2255 might be considered “inadequate or ineffective,” thus allowing recourse to §2241. AEDPA’s restrictions reflect Congress’s deliberate choice to balance finality with error correction in the justice system. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan jointly dissented, arguing that Jones presents the precise type of mismatch contemplated in §2255(h) and would those remand for the lower courts to consider his claim under the proper framework. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion arguing that §2255 requires that Jones’s petition alleging legal innocence should have been considered on the merits.

Cruz v. Arizona Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Nov 1, 2022.Decided on Feb 22, 2023. Petitioner: John Montenegro Cruz.Respondent: Arizona. Advocates: Neal Kumar Katyal (for the Petitioner) Joseph A. Kanefield (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 2005, a jury convicted John Montenegro Cruz of first-degree murder for the 2003 killing of a Tucson police officer and sentenced Cruz to death. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed Cruz’s conviction and sentence, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari. In 2012, Cruz filed a petition in state court for post-conviction relief, which the court dismissed, and the Arizona Supreme Court denied review. In 2014, Cruz initiated federal habeas proceedings. In 2016, while those proceedings were ongoing, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lynch v. Arizona (Lynch II), holding that the Arizona Supreme Court had misapplied precedent. Cruz then filed a second petition for post-conviction relief. Ordinarily that second petition would be barred, but state law provides for an exception if there was an intervening “significant change in the the law.” Cruz argued that the decision in Lynch II was a signficant change in the law, that it applies retroactively, and would probably overturn his sentence. The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that Lynch II was not a significant change in the law and was instead based on precedent well established at the time the defendant was convicted and sentenced. Question Is the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that a state rule of criminal procedure precluded post-conviction relief an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment against him, thereby precluding review by a federal court?  Conclusion The Arizona Supreme Court’s holding below is not an adequate state-law ground supporting that judgment and thus does not preclude federal court review. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. If the judgment of a state court rests on “adequate and independent state-law grounds,” the Supreme Court will not decide a simultaneously presented question of federal law. Generally, a state’s procedural ruling is adequate to foreclose a review of a federal claim. The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision holding that Lynch v. Arizona, 578 U.S. 613, did not represent a “significant change in the law,” as it was entirely new and conflicted with existing state law. Because the interpretation was so novel and unforeseeable, it cannot constitute an adequate state procedural ground. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch joined, arguing that the Court should have given the “utmost deference” to the state court’s interpretation of its own precedent and that it failed to do so.

Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 31, 2022.Decided on Jun 29, 2023. Petitioner: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc..Respondent: University of North Carolina, et al.. Advocates: Patrick Strawbridge (for the Petitioner) Ryan Y. Park (for the University Respondents) David G. Hinojosa (for the Student Respondents) Elizabeth B. Prelogar (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Petitioner Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued the University of North Carolina (UNC) over its admissions process, alleging that the process violates the Fourteenth Amendment by using race as a factor in admissions. UNC admits that it uses race as one of many factors in its admissions process but argues that its process adheres to the requirements for race-based admissions outlined in the Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. After an eight-day bench trial and litigation that spanned nearly seven years, the district court ruled that UNC’s admissions policy survived strict scrutiny and was consistent with Grutter v. Bollinger. SFFA appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed to hold the case in abeyance after the U.S. Supreme Court granted review. The case was originally consolidated for oral argument with a similar case challenging the admissions policies at Harvard University under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but the Court subsequently severed the two cases. Question May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? If so, does UNC’s race-conscious admissions process violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution? Conclusion The University of North Carolina admissions program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion. First the Court concluded that Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) had organizational standing because is a voluntary membership organization with identifable members who support its mission and whom SFFA represents in good faith.  Second, while the original purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was to ensure that laws apply equally to everyone, regardless of race, both the Supreme Court and the nation failed to uphold this principle, most notably in Plessy v. Ferguson, which sanctioned “separate but equal” facilities. However, the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education overturned this, and the equal protection principle has since expanded to various areas of life. Any exceptions to equal protection must satisfy “strict scrutiny”; that is, the government must show that the racial classification serves a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion became the touchstone for evaluating the constitutionality of race-based admissions, reasoning that diversity in the student body could be a “compelling state interest,” but that race could only be used as a “plus” in admissions and not as a quota. In Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court adopted Powell's viewpoint, while also setting limits to ensure race-based admissions did not result in stereotyping or harm to non-minority applicants, and stating that such race-based programs should eventually come to an end. Harvard’s (and UNC’s, in the consolidated case) race-based admissions systems fail to meet the strict scrutiny, non-stereotyping, and termination criteria established by Grutter and Bakke. Specifically, the universities could not demonstrate their compelling interests in a measurable way, failed to avoid racial stereotypes, and did not offer a logical endpoint for when race-based admissions would cease. As a result, the programs violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court noted that nothing prohibits universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected the applicant’s life, so long as that discussion is concretely tied to a quality of character or unique ability that the particular applicant can contribute to the university. Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh each wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined (except Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case against Harvard). Justice Jackson wrote a separate dissenting opinion.

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 31, 2022. Petitioner: Students for Fair Admissions, Inc..Respondent: President & Fellows of Harvard College. Advocates: Cameron T. Norris (for the Petitioner) Seth P. Waxman (for the Respondent) Elizabeth B. Prelogar (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Petitioner Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) sued Harvard College over its admissions process, alleging that the process violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against Asian American applicants in favor of white applicants. Harvard admits that it uses race as one of many factors in its admissions process but argues that its process adheres to the requirements for race-based admissions outlined in the Supreme Court’s decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. After a 15-day bench trial, the district court issued a detailed opinion in favor of Harvard. SFFA appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. The case was originally consolidated for oral argument with a similar case challenging the admissions policies at the University of North Carolina under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, but the Court severed the cases. Question May institutions of higher education use race as a factor in admissions? If so, does Harvard College’s race-conscious admissions process violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 12, 2022.Decided on Feb 22, 2023. Petitioner: Helix Energy Solutions, et al..Respondent: Michael J. Hewitt. Advocates: Paul D. Clement (for the Petitioners) Edwin Sullivan (for the Respondent) Anthony A. Yang (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Michael J. Hewitt worked on an offshore oil rig managing other employees. His employer, Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., paid Hewitt based solely on a daily rate, and he often was required to work well over forty hours per week. Hewitt sued Helix for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Helix argued that it was not required to pay Hewitt overtime because Hewitt was a “highly compensated employee,” and highly compensated employees are exempt from overtime pay. Hewitt argued that because his pay was calculated on a daily rate, he was not paid on a salary basis and thus was entitled to overtime pay regardless of the dollar amount he was paid. The district court ruled for Helix, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed.  Question Is a supervisor who makes over $200,000 annually, calculated on a daily basis, entitled to overtime pay, despite a regulation that carves out an exception for highly paid executives? Conclusion Daily-rate workers, of whatever income level, qualify as paid on a salary basis only if they satisfy the three conditions outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act. Justice Elena Kagan authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court holding that Hewitt was not an executive exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay guarantee. Under the FLSA, an employee is considered a bona fide executive excluded from the FLSA’s protections if the employee meets three tests: (1) the salary basis test, which requires that the employee receive a predetermined and fixed salary that does not vary with the amount of time worked; (2) the “salary level” test, which requires the preset salary to exceed a specified amount; and (3) the job “duties” test, which considers whether the employee has responsibility for managing the enterprise, directing other employees, and hiring and firing other employees. It was undisputed that Hewitt satisfied (2) and (3); at issue was whether he was paid on a salary basis. Under Section 602(a), an employee is paid on a salary basis if they regularly receive each pay period on a weekly or less frequent basis. Under the plain meaning of that provision, it does not apply to daily-rate workers. Hewitt’s pay, in contrast, was determined on a daily basis, despite receiving paychecks every two weeks. Because he did not satisfy the first part of the test, he was not an exempt executive within the FLSA and was thus entitled to overtime pay. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that the case should have been dismissed as improvidently granted because the issue originally presented was different from the issue argued and addressed. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel Alito joined, arguing that Hewitt was a bona fide executive based on his salary level and duties, and the fact that he was certain to make at least $963 per week for any week he worked.

Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 12, 2022.Decided on May 18, 2023. Petitioner: Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc..Respondent: Lynn Goldsmith, et al.. Advocates: Roman Martinez (for the Petitioner) Lisa S. Blatt (for the Respondents) Yaira Dubin (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Artist Andy Warhol created a series of silkscreen prints and pencil illustrations (“Prince Series”) based on a copyrighted 1981 photograph of the musician Prince, taken by Lynn Goldsmith. Warhol made some aesthetic changes to Goldsmith’s original photograph, but they remained “recognizably derived” from the original. Goldsmith sued the Andy Warhol Foundation, successor to Warhol’s copyright in the Prince Series, for copyright infringement. The Foundation raised fair use as a defense. The district court granted summary judgment for the Foundation, concluding that Warhol had “transformed” the original photograph by giving it a new “meaning and message.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, holding that because the Prince Series remained “recognizably derived” from the original, it failed to transform and was thus not fair use. Question What is the proper test for whether a work is “transformative” under the first factor of the Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine? Conclusion The “purpose and character” of the Andy Warhol Foundation (AWF)’s particular commercial use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph of the musician Prince does not favor AWF’s fair use defense to copyright infringement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court. The fair use defense to copyright infringement promotes creativity by recognizing that some secondary works make unauthorized use of original works but serve a different purpose, add new expression, or convey new ideas. Andy Warhol’s “Orange Prince,” one of the Prince Series that was derived from the photograph by Lynn Goldsmith, appeared on the cover of a Vanity Fair magazine commemorating the late musician for a fee of $10,000—all of which to AWF and of which Goldsmith received none. In contrast, Goldsmith’s photographs were licensed and used on several other magazine covers commemorating Prince. AWF’s use of Orange Prince on the cover of Vanity Fair served essentially the same commercial purpose as Goldsmith’s original. Thus, the first fair-use factor—the purpose and character of use, including whether the use is for commercial or nonprofit purpose—weighs against the conclusion that AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph for the specific purpose of a magazine cover commemorating Prince was fair. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined, emphasizing the narrowness of the majority’s opinion and its appropriate focus on the specific use challenged. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined, criticizing the majority of stifling creativity and disregarding the reality that creativity relies upon the borrowing of works that came before.

Reed v. Goertz Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 11, 2022.Decided on Apr 18, 2023. Petitioner: Rodney Reed.Respondent: Bryan Goertz, et al.. Advocates: Parker Rider-Longmaid (for the Petitioner) Judd E. Stone, II (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Rodney Reed was sentenced to death in Texas for the 1996 rape and murder of Stacey Stites. He unsuccessfully sought federal post-conviction relief, and when the state asked to set an execution date, Reed requested to have DNA testing conducted on several items on or near the victim’s body. A state trial court declined his request. Reed then filed a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 challenging the constitutionality of the Texas law governing post-conviction DNA testing. The district court dismissed his claim, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on the grounds that Reed’s claims are barred by the state’s two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims, which begins to run as soon as the plaintiff becomes aware that he has suffered an injury.” Question When does the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begin to run? Conclusion When a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations a procedural due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 begins to run when the state litigation ends. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion holding that, in Reed’s case, the statute of limitations on his § 1983 claim began when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied his motion for rehearing, not when the state trial court denied DNA testing. A statute of limitations begins to run when a plaintiff has “a complete and present cause of action.” When that occurs depends on the cause of action. The violation of procedural due process rights, as Reed alleged in this case, requires two elements: (1) deprivation by state action of a protected interest in life, liberty, or property, and (2) inadequate state process. Thus, a plaintiff has “a complete and present cause of action” for a procedural due process violation not at the time of deprivation, but at the time the state fails to provide due process. In Reed’s case, the State’s alleged failure to provide him with a fundamentally fair process was complete when the state litigation ended and deprived Reed of his asserted liberty interest in DNA testing. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case for lack of standing. Justice Thomas would dismiss the case on the finding that Reed’s action presents no original Article III case or controversy between him and the district attorney. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined, arguing that there are a number of points in the case at which the statute of limitations could begin to run—all before the denial by the Criminal Court of Appeals, and all leading to the conclusion that Reed’s claim is time-barred.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 11, 2022.Decided on May 11, 2023. Petitioner: National Pork Producers Council, et al..Respondent: Karen Ross, in Her Official Capacity as Secretary of the California Department of Food & Agriculture, et al.. Advocates: Timothy S. Bishop (for the Petitioners) Edwin S. Kneedler (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners) Michael J. Mongan (for the State Respondents) Jeffrey A. Lamken (for the Humane Society of the United States, et al., Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12, which amends the California Health and Safety Code to prohibit the sale of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards. Trade associations representing the pork industry and farmers challenged the law as violating the dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from discriminating against interstate commerce or imposing undue burdens on interstate commerce. According to the challengers, Proposition 12 places an undue burden on interstate commerce and that it causes an impermissible “extraterritorial effect” because it effectively forces all or most hog farmers, regardless of their location, to comply with the California requirements yet mostly affects non-California transactions (because 87% of the pork produced in the country is consumed outside of California). The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the complaint did not plausibly plead that Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause under either theory. Question Does a California law that prohibits the in-state sale of pork from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards violate the “dormant” component of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause? Conclusion California’s Proposition 12 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored an opinion in which a majority of the Court voted to affirm the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. State laws violate the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause when they seek to “build up…domestic commerce” through “burdens upon the industry and business of other States.” An antidiscrimination principle is at the core of the dormant Commerce Clause; an “almost per se” rule against state laws that have extraterritorial effects is unsupported. A state law that does have extraterritorial effects but does not purposefully discriminate does not necessarily violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Under the balancing test established in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970), a court must assess “the burden imposed on interstate commerce” by the state law and prevent its enforcement if the law’s burdens are “clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.” A majority of the Court concluded that under this test, Proposition 12 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, concluded that the petitioners failed to plausibly allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce and thus voted with the majority. Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, concluded that the petitioners did allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce, but the benefits and burdens of Proposition 12 are incommensurable. Chief Justice John Roberts filed an opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Chief Justice Roberts argued that the petitioners did allege a substantial burden on interstate commerce and that the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded to the court below to decide whether the petitioners had stated a claim under Pike. Justice Kavanaugh authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, largely agreeing with the Chief Justice but pointing out also that state economic regulations like California’s Proposition 12 may raise questions not only under the Commerce Clause, but also under the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Allen v. Milligan Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 4, 2022.Decided on Jun 8, 2023. Appellant: Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al..Appellee: Evan Milligan, et al.. Advocates: Edmund G. Lacour, Jr. (for the Appellants/Petitioners) Deuel Ross (for the Appellees) Abha Khanna (for the Respondents) Elizabeth B. Prelogar (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Appellees/Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) After the 2020 census, Alabama created a redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. One of the districts in the plan is a majority-Black district. Registered voters and several organizations challenged the map, arguing that the state had illegally packed Black voters into a single district while dividing other clusters of Black voters across multiple districts. The challengers alleged that the map effectively minimizes the number of districts in which Black voters can elect their chosen candidates, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination in voting policies. A three-judge district court agreed with the challengers that the map likely violated Section 2 of the VRA, granting a preliminary injunction that ordered the state to draw a new map. Alabama asked the U.S. Supreme Court to freeze the district court’s injunction, which the Court did by a 5-4 decision pending a merits decision. Question Does Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven U.S. House seats violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? Conclusion The district court correctly applied binding Supreme Court precedent to conclude that Alabama’s redistricting map likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court. The Court’s decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) sets out a three-part framework for evaluating claims brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. First, the plaintiffs must prove that the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district (measured by criteria such as contiguity and compactness). Second, the plaintiffs must show that the minority group is politically cohesive. Third, the plaintiffs must show that under the totality of the circumstances, the political process is not “equally open” to minority voters. The majority applied that three-part framework to the facts in the record and agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their challenge. The plaintiffs submitted maps demonstrating the traditional districting criteria, and the district court found “no serious dispute” that Black voters are politically cohesive or that the challenged districts’ white majority consistently defeated Black voters’ preferred candidates. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion except for a discussion of the difference between race-consciousness and race-predominance. He concurred separately to emphasize and clarify four additional points. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined in full, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Samuel Alito joined in part. Justice Thomas argued that Section 2 of the VRA does not require Alabama to redraw its congressional districts so that Black voters can control a number of seats proportional to Black voters in its population. Justice Alito authored a dissenting opinion in which Justice Gorsuch joined arguing that the majority’s understanding of Gingles—specifically its understanding of the phrase “reasonably configured” within the context of the first precondition—is flawed, and that a correct understanding would lead to a different result in this case.

Arellano v. McDonough Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 4, 2022.Decided on Jan 23, 2023. Petitioner: Adolfo R. Arellano.Respondent: Dennis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Advocates: James R. Barney (for the Petitioner) Sopan Joshi (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Adolfo R. Arellano served honorably in the Navy from November 1977 to October 1981. On June 3, 2011—more than 30 years after he was discharged—he applied for disability benefits on the basis of psychiatric disorders that rendered him 100% disabled. He sought retroactive benefits from the day after his discharge, arguing that the one-year filing deadline to submit disability claims should be extended in his case because his mental illness had prevented him from filing his claim earlier. The VA Regional Office granted his claim, but only from the date the claim was received. The Board of Appeals rejected his argument, and the Veterans Court affirmed that decision, concluding that Mr. Arellano's claim was “squarely foreclosed by binding precedent” in Andrews v. Principi, 351 F.3d 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2003), which held that principles of equitable tolling are not applicable to the time period in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1). Question Can the one-year filing deadline for veterans to submit disability claims after they are discharged be extended under principles of equitable tolling? Conclusion The one-year filing deadline for veterans to submit disability claims after they are discharged cannot be extended under principles of equitable tolling. Justice Amy Coney Barret authored the unanimous opinion of the Court holding that the effective date of Arellano’s award of disability compensation was the day the VA received his claim. Equitable tolling can extend a deadline when a litigant diligently pursues their rights but is nonetheless prevented from bringing a timely action due to extraordinary circumstances. Courts presume that equitable tolling applies, but that presumption is rebuttable by evidence that it is inconsistent with the statutory scheme. The default rule of 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a)(1) establishes that the day VA receives a claim is the effective date, subject to the limited exception in § 5110(b)(1), which states that “the effective date of an award . . . shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor.” Moreover, the structure of § 5110, which sets out 16 exceptions that explain when each type of benefits qualifies for an effective date earlier than the default, suggests Congress intended only certain enumerated exceptions to the default date. This statutory language and structure indicate Congress’s intent that principles of equitable tolling not apply.