Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Nance v. Ward Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 25, 2022.Decided on Jun 23, 2022. Petitioner: Michael Nance.Respondent: Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections and Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison. Advocates: Matthew S. Hellman (for the Petitioner) Masha G. Hansford (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner) Stephen J. Petrany (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 1993, Michael Wade Nance robbed a bank, and, in the process of fleeing, killed a person. In 1997, a jury convicted Nance of murder, and he was sentenced to death. The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed his death sentence and rejected a petition for collateral relief. Nance then filed a federal habeas petition; the district court denied the petition, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Then, in 2020, Nance filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that the State’s lethal-injection protocol was unconstitutional as applied to him because of two medical issues. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss Nance’s complaint, concluding that it was untimely and failed to state a claim. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that because the relief Nance sought implied the invalidity of his death sentence, his complaint must be construed as a habeas petition, and because he had already filed an earlier habeas petition, it was properly considered a “successive” petition, over which a district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Question What is the proper legal procedure for a death-row inmate’s challenge to the method by which the state intends to execute? Conclusion Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the procedural vehicle appropriate for a prisoner’s method-of-execution claim even if an order granting the relief requested would necessitate a change in state law. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion of the Court. Both Section 1983 and the federal habeas statute allow a prisoner to complain of “unconstitutional treatment at the hands of state officials.” However, Section 1983 has an implicit exception for actions that lie “within the core of habeas corpus”—that is, relief that would “necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence.” In two prior cases, the Court allowed a prisoner to bring a method-of-execution claim under Section 1983, but those cases did not require a change in state law, only in an agency’s uncodified protocol. In contrast, here, Nance’s requested relief would require Georgia to change its statute to carry out Nance’s execution by firing squad. However, this requirement is not a substantial impediment, nor would it necessarily imply the invalidity of his death sentence. Thus, Section 1983 remains the proper vehicle for his method-of-execution claim. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch joined, arguing that the Court erroneously considered the law as it could exist, rather than as it is. Justice Barrett argued that because the relief Nance requests precludes his execution under current state law, habeas is the proper vehicle for seeking that relief.

Vega v. Tekoh Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 20, 2022.Decided on Jun 23, 2022. Petitioner: Carlos Vega.Respondent: Terence B. Tekoh. Advocates: Roman Martinez (for the Petitioner) Vivek Suri (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner) Paul L. Hoffman (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Terence Tekoh worked as a patient transporter in a hospital in Los Angeles. After a patient accused him of sexual assault, hospital staff reported the allegation to the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. Deputy Carlos Vega went to the hospital to ask Tekoh some questions and to take Tekoh’s statement. Although the parties described vastly different accounts of the nature of the interaction between Tekoh and Vega, it is undisputed that Vega did not advise Tekoh of his Miranda rights prior to questioning him or taking his statement. Tekoh was arrested and charged in California state court, but a jury returned a verdict of not guilty. Following the acquittal on the criminal charge, Tekoh sued Vega under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Vega violated Tekoh’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by taking his statement without first advising him of his Miranda rights. Based on the district court’s instructions, a jury found for Vega. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the verdict, reversed the district court’s judgment, and remanded the case for a new trial. Question Is the use of an un-Mirandized statement against a defendant in a criminal case sufficient to support a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action? Conclusion A violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a basis for a § 1983 claim. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion of the Court. Miranda imposed a set of prophylactic rules requiring that police officers issue warnings before a custodial interrogation and disallowing the use of statements obtained in violation of those rules. A Miranda violation is not necessarily a Fifth Amendment violation. Expansion of Miranda rules to provide a right to sue for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 would provide very little benefit and would impose substantial costs on the judicial system. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined, arguing that the Court’s precedents recognize Miranda as conferring a constitutional right, and as such, violation of that constitutional right should be sufficient to support a claim under 42 U.S.C § 1983.

Kemp v. United States Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 19, 2022.Decided on Jun 13, 2022. Petitioner: Dexter Earl Kemp.Respondent: United States of America. Advocates: Andrew L. Adler (for the Petitioner) Benjamin W. Snyder (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Dexter Kemp and several co-defendants were charged and convicted of drug and firearms offenses. Kemp and some of the co-defendants appealed, but their sentences were affirmed. Some of the co-defendants, without Kemp, filed petitions for rehearings, rehearings en banc, and certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. Over a year later, Kemp moved to vacate his sentence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied his motion as untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). Kemp argued that his petition was timely under Supreme Court Rule 13.3, which provides that if a petition for rehearing is timely filed in the lower court, the time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari runs from the date of the denial of rehearing. The court denied his motion, finding that it fell under Rule 60(b)(1) because it alleged the court made a “mistake,” and that such motions must be filed within one year. Question Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) authorize relief based on a district court’s error of law? Conclusion The term “mistake” in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) includes a judge’s errors of law, but Kemp’s motion was untimely under Rule 60(c)’s 1-year limitations period. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court. When the Rule was adopted in 1938 and revised in 1946, the word “mistake” applied to any “misconception,” “misunderstanding,” or “fault in opinion or judgment” as to any law or fact. The text, structure, and history of the Rule support the understanding that it applies to judicial mistakes, not just party mistakes. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion clarifying that the Court’s opinion does not disturb establish precedent or break new ground. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that he would have dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.

George v. McDonough Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 19, 2022.Decided on Jun 15, 2022. Petitioner: Kevin R. George.Respondent: Denis R. McDonough. Advocates: Melanie L. Bostwick (for the Petitioner) Anthony A. Yang (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Kevin R. George and Michael B. Martin are both military veterans who sought and were denied disability benefits several decades ago based on the straightforward application of a regulation. Since then, the regulation was overturned, so George and Martin sought revision of those denial decisions based on the “clear and unmistakable error” (CUE) by the VA. The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied the motions, holding that it was not clear and unmistakable error to faithfully apply a regulation that existed at the time. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. Question When the Department of Veterans Affairs denies a veteran’s claim for benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation later deemed invalid under the plain text of the statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial, is that the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that the veteran may invoke to challenge the VA’s decision? Conclusion The invalidation of a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation after a veteran’s benefits decision becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief permitting revision of that decision based on “clear and unmistakable error.” Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the majority opinion of the Court. The “clean and unmistakable error” doctrine evolved over several decades. Its history reveals that this category of error does not encompass a subsequent change in law or in interpretation of law. Because the invalidation of a prior regulation constitutes a “change in interpretation of law,” this type of error does not encompass a claim like George’s. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that the history of “clear and unmistakable error” is not so clear as the majority suggests. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Gorsuch argued that the Court erroneously excuses an agency’s departure from its statutory commands.  

United States v. Washington Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 18, 2022.Decided on Jun 21, 2022. Petitioner: United States of America.Respondent: State of Washington, et al.. Advocates: Malcolm L. Stewart (for the Petitioner) Tera M. Heintz (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The Hanford site was a federal nuclear production site in Washington State that operated between 1944 and 1989, producing substantial amounts of radioactive and chemically hazardous waste. The U.S. Department of Energy now oversees cleanup of the site, which is largely conducted by private contractors and subcontractors. In 2018, Washington amended its state workers’ compensation laws specifically for these cleanup workers. The amended law creates a rebuttable presumption that certain conditions and cancers are occupational diseases. The federal government challenged the law as violating the principle of intergovernmental immunity. The district court granted summary judgment for Washington, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Question Does a Washington state workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to certain federal workers in that state violate the principle of intergovernmental immunity? Conclusion Washington’s workers’ compensation law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause because it facially discriminates against the federal government and does not fall within the scope of the federal waiver of immunity. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The Supremacy Clause prohibits states from interfering with or controlling the operations of the federal government, also known as the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. Washington’s law explicitly treats federal workers differently from state and private workers, and imposes costs upon the federal government that state and private entities do not bear. As such, it is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Contrary to Washington’s claims, no federal law “clearly and unambiguously” waives federal immunity from workers’ compensation laws.

Siegel v. Fitzgerald Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 18, 2022.Decided on Jun 6, 2022. Petitioner: Alfred H. Siegel.Respondent: John P. Fitzgerald, III. Advocates: Daniel L. Geyser (for the Petitioner) Curtis E. Gannon (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Since 1978, bankruptcy courts in the United States have operated under two programs for the handling of their proceedings — the Trustee program and the Bankruptcy Administrator program. Eighty-eight of the 94 judicial districts operate within the Trustee program, while the other districts (in Alabama and North Carolina) are under the Bankruptcy Administrator program. The former is part of the Department of Justice, while the latter is overseen by the Judicial Council of the United States. Each program is also funded differently. The Bankruptcy Administrator program is funded by the judiciary's general budget, whereas the bankruptcy debtors in Trustee districts primarily fund the Trustee program. All Chapter 11 debtors, regardless of district, paid quarterly fees under a consistent formula until January 1, 2018, at which time the Trustee program experienced a funding deficit. To remedy that deficit, Congress passed the 2017 Amendment, which increased the quarterly fees for larger Chapter 11 cases in the Trustee program. In 2008, Circuit City—then a national chain of consumer electronics retail stores throughout the United States—filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the Eastern District of Virginia, which is a Trustee district. As part of its liquidation plan, Circuit City was to pay fees to the U.S. Trustee until the close of bankruptcy. However, after the quarterly fees increased, Circuit City refused to pay the increased fees, arguing that the 2017 Amendment is unconstitutional because it creates nonuniform bankruptcy laws in violation of the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution. The Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled for the Circuit City trustee, finding the 2017 Amendment violated the Bankruptcy Clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. Question Does the 2017 Amendment (part of the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act) violate the uniformity requirement of the Constitution's Bankruptcy Clause by increasing quarterly fees solely in districts under the U.S. Trustee program and not in those under the Bankruptcy Administrator program? Conclusion The 2017 Amendment to the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act, which imposed a significant fee increase that exempted debtors in two States, violates the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The 2017 Act increased fees differently for Chapter 11 debtors in different regions. That difference was due not to an external and geographically isolated need, but from Congress's creation of a dual bankruptcy system which allowed certain districts to opt into a system more favorable for debtors. The Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause does not permit Congress to treat identical debtors differently based on artificial distinctions Congress itself created. Thus, the 2017 Amendment violates the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause.

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Mar 30, 2022.Decided on Jun 15, 2022. Petitioner: Viking River Cruises, Inc..Respondent: Angie Moriana. Advocates: Paul D. Clement (for the Petitioner) Scott L. Nelson (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Angie Moriana worked as a sales representative for Viking River Cruises, Inc., and agreed to submit any dispute arising out of her employment to binding arbitration. Notwithstanding that agreement, Moriana sued Viking on behalf of herself and similarly situated workers under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA). Moriana relied on a 2014 decision by the California Supreme Court, Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, which held arbitration agreements that waive the right to bring PAGA representative actions in any forum (such as the one between Moriana and Viking) are unenforceable. Viking moved to compel Moriana’s claims to arbitration, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis overruled Iskanian. The trial court denied Viking’s motion. The appellate court affirmed. Question Does the Federal Arbitration Act require enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims? Conclusion The Federal Arbitration Act preempts a California law that invalidates contractual waivers of the right to bring representative claims. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion holding that the FAA preempts the rule in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles to the extent that Iskanian precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate. The California Supreme Court’s holding in Iskanian, holding unenforceable any arbitration agreement that waives the right to bring a PAGA representative action, presents parties with an impermissible choice: either arbitrate disputes using a form of class procedures, or do not arbitrate at all. The FAA protects bilateral arbitration from undue state interference. To the extent that Iskanian precludes bilateral arbitration, it is preempted by federal law. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the FAA does not apply to state-court proceedings.

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Mar 29, 2022.Decided on Jun 29, 2022. Petitioner: Le Roy Torres.Respondent: Texas Department of Public Safety. Advocates: Andrew T. Tutt (for the Petitioner) Christopher G. Michel (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner) Judd E. Stone, II (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Leroy Torres enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve in 1989. In 1998, he was employed by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) as a trooper, where he served until his deployment to Iraq in 2007. In 2008, he was honorably discharged and sought reemployment by DPS. However, due to a lung condition he acquired in Iraq, Torres requested employment with DPS in a position different from the one he held before. Instead, DPS offered Torres only a “temporary duty offer,” which he declined. Torres sued DPS in 2017, alleging that the agency’s failure to offer him a job that would accommodate his disability violated the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), which prohibits adverse employment actions against an employee based on the employee’s military service. The trial court ruled in favor of Torres, finding that USERRA properly abrogated DPS’s sovereign immunity under Congress’s constitutional war powers. The appellate court reversed. Question Did Congress properly abrogate state sovereign immunity for claims arising under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)? Conclusion Congress properly exercised its power to raise and support the Armed Forces when it authorized private damages suits against nonconsenting States, as in the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the majority opinion of the Court. In PennEast, the Court held that Congress could, pursuant to its eminent domain power, authorize lawsuits against nonconsenting States because, upon entering the federal system, the States implicitly agreed that their “eminent domain power would yield to that of the Federal Government.” Under PennEast, the test for structural waiver is whether the federal power is “complete in itself, and the States consented to the exercise of that power—in its entirety—in the plan of the Convention.” Congress’s power to build and maintain the Armed Forces fits PennEast’s test. Thus, in joining together to form a Union, the States agreed to sacrifice their sovereign immunity for the good of the common defense. Justice Elena Kagan authored a concurring opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined.

LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Company Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Mar 28, 2022.Decided on Apr 28, 2022. Petitioner: Bradley LeDure.Respondent: Union Pacific Railroad Company. Advocates: David C. Frederick (for the Petitioner) Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner) J. Scott Ballenger (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Bradley LeDure is a conductor for Union Pacific Railroad Company. In August 2016, LeDure reported for work at a rail yard in Salem, Illinois, to assemble a train for a trip to Dexter, Missouri. Three locomotives were coupled together on a sidetrack, and LeDure decided only one locomotive would be powered on. On an exterior walkway on his way to shut down one of the locomotives, LeDure slipped and fell down the steps. Upon investigation, LeDure noticed a “slick” substance, which Union Pacific later reported to be a “small amount of oil” on the walkway. LeDure sued Union Pacific for negligence under the Locomotive Inspection Act and the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, arguing that Union Pacific failed to maintain the walkway free of hazards. The district court dismissed LeDure’s claims, finding the locomotive was not “in use” and therefore not subject to the Locomotive Inspection Act, and LeDure’s injuries were not reasonably foreseeable because they resulted from a small “slick spot” unknown to Union Pacific. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Question Is a train that makes a temporary stop in a railyard as part of its unitary journey in interstate commerce “in use” and therefore subject to the Locomotive Inspection Act? Conclusion The judgment of the Seventh Circuit, affirming that the train was not "in use" and therefore not subject to the Locomotive Inspection Act, was affirmed by an equally divided Court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Mar 28, 2022.Decided on Jun 6, 2022. Petitioner: Southwest Airlines Co..Respondent: Latrice Saxon. Advocates: Shay Dvoretzky (for the Petitioner) Jennifer D. Bennett (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Latrice Saxon is a ramp supervisor, which entails managing and assisting workers to load and unload airplane cargo for Southwest Airlines. Unlike ramp agents, supervisors like Saxon are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement and instead are required to arbitrate wage disputes, in accordance with their employment contract. Notwithstanding the arbitration requirement, Saxon, on behalf of herself and other ramp supervisors, sued Southwest under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay overtime work. Southwest moved to stay the suit pending arbitration, or to dismiss it altogether in light of the arbitration agreement. Saxon argued that the Arbitration Act did not apply to her lawsuit because she and other ramp supervisors were “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” and therefore exempt under Section 1 of the Act. The district court ruled for Southwest, finding that a transportation worker must actually transport goods, not merely handle them at one end or the other of a network. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding the act of loading cargo onto a vehicle to be transported interstate is itself commerce, and thus Saxon and the class of workers she represents are exempt from the Act. Question Is an airline employee who works as a ramp agent supervisor a “transportation worker” under Section 1 of the Arbitration Act and therefore exempt from the Act’s arbitration requirement? Conclusion An airline employee who works as a ramp agent supervisor, frequently loading and unloading airplane cargo, belongs to the “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” and is therefore exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act’s arbitration requirement. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the unanimous 8-0 opinion of the Court. The “class of workers” language of Section 1 refers not to what Southwest does generally, but what Saxon, as a worker, does specifically: physically loading and unloading cargo on and off airplanes. This work qualifies as being “engaged in foreign or interstate commerce,” as these workers are directly involved in transporting goods across state or international borders. Thus, Saxon falls within Section 1’s exception. Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.