Supreme Court Oral Arguments

United States v. Zubaydah Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 6, 2021.Decided on Mar 3, 2022. Petitioner: United States.Respondent: Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn, aka Abu Zubaydah, et al.. Advocates: Brian H. Fletcher (for the Petitioner) David F. Klein (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Zayn Husayn, also known as Abu Zubaydah, is a former associate of Osama bin Laden. U.S. military forces captured him in Pakistan and detained him abroad before moving him to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, where he is currently being held. Zubaydah alleged that, before being transferred to Guantanamo, he was held at a CIA “dark site” in Poland, where two former CIA contractors used “enhanced interrogation techniques” against him. Zubaydah intervened in a Polish criminal investigation into the CIA’s conduct in that country, and he sought to compel the U.S. government to disclose evidence connected with that investigation. The government has declassified some information about Zubaydah’s treatment in CIA custody, but it has asserted the state-secrets privilege to protect other information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s assertion of state-secrets privilege based on its own assessment of potential harms to national security and allowed discovery in the case to proceed. Question Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit err in rejecting the federal government’s assertion of the state-secrets privilege based on its own assessment of the potential harms to national security that would result from disclosure of information pertaining to clandestine CIA activities? Conclusion The Ninth Circuit erred in holding, based on its own assessment, that the state secrets privilege did not apply to information that could confirm or deny the existence of a CIA detention site in Poland. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the 7-2 majority opinion. To invoke the state secrets privilege, the government must show a reasonable danger of harm to national security. In a declaration supporting its claim of privilege, the Government submitted a declaration from the Director of the CIA stating that a response to the discovery requests would significantly harm our national security interests by confirming or denying the existence of a CIA detention site in Poland. Although some publicly available sources claim that such a site exists, the CIA has made no official statement. The specific language of Zubaydah’s discovery requests would elicit information that tends to confirm or deny the existence of such a site, so the government is entitled to invoke the state secrets privilege in response to those requests. Justice Breyer, writing on behalf of himself, Chief Justice John Roberts, and four other Justices, would dismiss the application for discovery. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Samuel Alito joined. Justice Thomas argued that Zubaydah’s “dubious” need for discovery requires dismissal of his discovery application regardless of the government’s reasons for invoking the state secrets privilege. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored an opinion concurring in part, in which Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined. Justice Kavanaugh clarified the process by which a court assesses invocation of the state secrets privilege, with great deference to the Executive Branch. Justice Elena Kagan authored an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, arguing that even when the government meets its burden of showing a “reasonable danger” of harm to national security (as she agreed it did in this case), that does not require dismissal of the case. Rather, it is possible to segregate the classified location information from the unclassified treatment information and allow discovery of the latter. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Gorsuch pointed out that the events took place two decades ago and have since been declassified and the subject of numerous books, movies, and official reports. As such, while dismissing the suit might save the government “embarrassment,” doing so will not “safeguard any secret.”

Brown v. Davenport Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 5, 2021.Decided on Apr 21, 2022. Petitioner: Mike Brown, Acting Warden.Respondent: Ervine Davenport. Advocates: Fadwa A. Hammoud (for the Petitioner) Tasha Bahal (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) A Michigan jury convicted Ervine Lee Davenport of first-degree murder in 2008. He challenged his conviction in a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because at trial he was restrained at the waist, wrist, and ankles, although there was a privacy curtain around the defense table. The State admitted that the visible restraints were unconstitutional but argued that the error was harmless. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed, finding that while it was error for the trial court to order the defendant to be restrained without justification, Davenport had not shown that his restraints were visible to the jury and thus failed to show prejudice. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded, and on remand, five jurors testified that they saw the shackles and two others had heard comments about the shackles. Nevertheless, the trial court concluded that although some jurors saw the shackles, the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the shackling did not affect the jury’s verdict. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Davenport challenged the conviction in federal court, and the district court denied the petition and certificate of appealability. Davenport petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for a certificate of appealability, which the court granted. Noting that “shackling is inherently prejudicial,” the Sixth Circuit concluded that the State had not met its burden to show that the restraints did not have a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict” and reversed. Question What is the appropriate standard of review for a federal court deciding whether to grant habeas relief? Conclusion A federal court deciding whether to grant habeas relief must apply both the test the Supreme Court outlined in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, and the one Congress prescribed in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court holding that the Sixth Circuit erred in granting relief based solely on its application of the Brecht standard. Since the founding, Congress has authorized (but not required) federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus “as law and justice require.” In response to an evolving use of the writ, the Supreme Court in Brecht v. Abrahamson held that a state prisoner seeking federal habeas relief must show that the constitutional error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict.” Congress subsequently further reformed the writ in passing AEDPA, which is a constitutionally valid rule of decision. AEDPA instructs that federal courts shall not grant relief for a claim adjudicated in state court unless the state court’s decision was (1) contrary to clearly established law or (2) based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Notably, Congress left intact the tradition whereby federal courts have discretion to grant relief if “law and justice require.” The test outlined in Brecht is different from the requirements of AEDPA; proof of prejudice under Brecht does not satisfy AEDPA. Moreover, the materials a court may consult when considering each test are different. As such, a court must apply both tests when reviewing a habeas claim. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined. Justice Kagan argued that the Court twice, in 2007 and again in 2015, stated that the Brecht standard “obviously subsumes” the “more liberal” AEDPA standard and that if a defendant meets the former, he will “necessarily” meet the latter, too. Justice Kagan pointed out that every Justice has subscribed to that position in prior decisions and that requiring courts to apply both tests is unnecessarily burdensome and “will never lead to a different result” from application of the Brecht test alone.

Hemphill v. New York Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 5, 2021.Decided on Jan 20, 2022. Petitioner: Darrell Hemphill.Respondent: New York. Advocates: Jeffrey L. Fisher (for the Petitioner) Gina Mignola (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In April 2006, two men got into a fight with several other people on a street in the Bronx. Shortly thereafter, someone opened fire with a 9 millimeter handgun, killing a child in a passing car. Three eyewitnesses identified Nicholas Morris as the shooter. Police searched Morris’s home and found a 9 millimeter cartridge and ammunition for a .357 revolver. They arrested him the next day. He was indicted for the child’s murder and for possession of a 9 millimeter handgun, but the prosecution ended in a mistrial. Instead of trying him again, the State offered Morris a deal: If Morris pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm at the scene of the shooting, the State would request that the murder charge be dismissed with prejudice. Morris accepted the plea deal. However, the State charged Morris with possessing a .357 revolver at the scene of the shooting, rather than a 9 millimeter established as the murder weapon. The prosecution lacked sufficient evidence to establish possession of the .357 revolver, so Morris supplied the evidence through his own statement. In 2013, the state charged Darrell Hemphill, the petitioner in this case who was also present at the fight in the Bronx, with the murder. At trial, Hemphill elicited testimony that police had recovered the 9 millimeter cartridge on Morris’s nightstand hours after the shooting. In response, the prosecution sought to introduce into evidence Morris’s statement that he possessed a .357 revolver at the scene. Based in part on this evidence, Hemphill was found guilty of second-degree murder and sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison. An appellate court affirmed the conviction, as did New York’s highest court. Question When, if ever, does a criminal defendant who “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence also forfeit his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause? Conclusion A criminal defendant does not forfeit his confrontation right merely by making an argument in his defense based on a testimonial out-of-court statement like a plea allocution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court. The Confrontation Clause of the U.S. Constitution guarantees criminal defendants the right to confront witnesses against them, and the Court has recognized no open-ended exceptions to this requirement—only those exceptions established at the time of the founding. In People v. Reid, New York’s highest court held that a criminal defendant “opens the door” to evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause if the evidence was “reasonably necessary” to correct a misleading impression made by the defense’s argument. Contrary to the State’s contention, the Reid rule is not merely procedural, but a substantive principle of evidence that dictates what material is relevant and admissible. Such an exception is antithetical to the Confrontation Clause. Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined, to note different circumstances under which a defendant can be deemed to have waived the right to confront adverse witnesses. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that because Hemphill did not raise his Sixth Amendment claim in the New York Court of Appeals, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review its decision.

Wooden v. United States Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 4, 2021.Decided on Mar 7, 2022. Petitioner: William Dale Wooden.Respondent: United States. Advocates: Allon Kedem (for the Petitioner) Erica L. Ross (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 1997, William Wooden broke into a mini-storage facility in Georgia and stole from 10 different units, resulting in 10 counts of burglary, to which he pled guilty. Then, in 2014, a plainclothes officer went to Wooden’s home, where he witnessed Wooden in possession of a rifle. Wooden was arrested and charged in state court with being a felon in possession of a firearm, but the case was dismissed when the district attorney noted that there was no probable cause for Wooden’s arrest. Wooden was subsequently charged by federal indictment with being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and 924(e). After Wooden was found guilty, the district court found during his sentencing hearing that Wooden qualified as an armed career criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), based on his conviction for the 10 counts of burglary, and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment accordingly. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that Wooden’s prior burglaries were separate from each other, despite occurring as part of a single criminal spree. Question Are offenses committed as part of a single criminal spree but sequentially in time “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act? Conclusion Offenses committed as part of a single criminal episode did not occur on different “occasions” and thus count as only one offense for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act. Justice Elena Kagan authored the majority opinion that was unanimous in the judgment to reverse the lower court. The ordinary meaning of the word “occasion” does not require occurrence at precisely one moment in time. For example, an ordinary person would describe Wooden as burglarizing ten units “on one occasion” but would not say “on ten occasions, Wooden burglarized a unit in the facility.” And indeed “Wooden committed his burglaries on a single night, in a single uninterrupted course of conduct.” The history of the ACCA confirms this understanding, as Congress added an “occasions clause,” which requires that prior crimes occur on “occasions different from one another.” This interpretation is also consistent with the purpose of the ACCA, which is to address the “special danger” posed by the “armed career criminal”—a concern not presented by the situation of a single criminal episode. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurrence noting that on the facts, she agreed with the majority that Wooden’s prior convictions did not take place on “occasions different from one another” but also with Justice Neil Gorsuch’s point that the rule of lenity provides an independent basis for ruling in favor of a defendant in a closer case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurrence explaining why the rule of lenity has played a limited role in the Court’s criminal case law and why the presumption of mens rea addresses Justice Gorsuch’s concern about fair notice. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Justice Barrett agreed with the majority about the ordinary meaning of the word “occasion” but disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the statutory history. Justice Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, which Justice Sotomayor joined in part. Justice Gorsuch argued that the rule of lenity provides a definitive rule of decision in these types of cases, in contrast to a list of factors to consider, which could lead to inconsistent outcomes in cases where the facts are less clear.

Mississippi v. Tennessee Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Oct 4, 2021.Decided on Nov 22, 2021. Petitioner: State of Mississippi.Respondent: State of Tennessee, et al.. Advocates: John V. Coghlan (On Behalf of the Plaintiff) David C. Frederick (On Behalf of the Defendant) Frederick Liu (for the United States as Amicus Curiae, in Support of Overruling Plaintiff's Exceptions) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The State of Mississippi sued the State of Tennessee in 2014, alleging that Tennessee was taking Mississippi’s groundwater by allowing a Tennessee utility company to pump large amounts of groundwater from the Middle Claiborne Aquifer, which is located at the Mississippi-Tennessee border. Mississippi argues that the groundwater stored in the aquifer lies entirely within Mississippi and would never flow into Tennessee if it were not for the pumping. Mississippi expressly disclaims any equitable apportionment remedy, arguing that the principle does not apply to this dispute. Instead it seeks only damages and related relief. The Special Master recommended that the Court dismiss the complaint but grant Mississippi leave to amend its complaint to seek equitable apportionment. Question Is Mississippi entitled to damages, injunctive, and other equitable relief for the groundwater taken by Tennessee? Conclusion Mississippi is entitled only to the remedy of equitable apportionment, and since its complaint expressly disclaimed equitable apportionment, its complaint is dismissed without leave to amend. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Equitable apportionment is a judicial remedy that seeks to fairly allocate a shared water resource between two or more states. Although the Court has not previously considered whether the doctrine of equitable apportionment applies to interstate aquifers, it has applied the remedy when transboundary water resources were at issue, and the same reasoning applies. First, like other transboundary water resources, the Middle Claiborne Aquifer has a “multistate character.” Second, it contains water that naturally flows between the states. And third, actions taken in Tennessee affect the portion of the aquifer that underlies Mississippi. For these reasons, equitable apportionment applies to the waters of the Middle Claiborne Aquifer.

Terry v. United States Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on May 4, 2021.Decided on Jun 14, 2021. Petitioner: Tarahrick Terry.Respondent: United States. Advocates: Andrew L. Adler (for the Petitioner) Eric J. Feigin (for the Respondent, supporting reversal) Adam K. Mortara (Court-appointed amicus curiae, supporting the judgment below) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Tarahrick Terry pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute a substance containing a “detectable” amount of cocaine base (3.9 grams), thus triggering the penalties in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C). Based on his prior convictions, the statutory term of imprisonment was 0 to 30 years, and the district court sentenced him to 188 months’ imprisonment with 6 years’ supervised release. Terry moved for a sentence reduction on the basis that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 raised the weight ceiling of § 841(b) from 5 grams of cocaine base to 28 grams. The district court denied his motion, concluding that Terry did not commit a “covered offense” and thus was not eligible for relief under the First Step Act, which made retroactive the statutory penalties for certain offenses committed before August 3, 2010. Because the Fair Sentencing Act did not expressly amend § 841(b)(1)(C), Terry’s offense was not a “covered offense.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Question Do pre-August 3, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act? Conclusion Crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) do not have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act because a sentence reduction under the Act is available only if an offender’s prior conviction of a crack cocaine offense triggered a mandatory minimum sentence. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion of the Court. An offender is eligible for a sentence reduction only if he previously received “a sentence for a covered offense,” which the Act defines as “a violation of a Federal criminal statute, the statutory penalties for which were modified by” certain provisions in the Fair Sentencing Act. The Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties only for offenses that triggered mandatory-minimum penalties. Because Terry was convicted for an offense that does not have a mandatory minimum, his offense was not a “covered offense” and thus was not eligible for a sentence reduction under the Act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. She expressly declined to join the majority’s “sanitized” description of the history of penalties for crack offenses and pointed out that because Terry was both convicted under subparagraph (C) and sentenced as a career offender, he never had a chance to ask for a sentence that reflects today’s understanding of the lesser severity of his crime, and he never will get that chance without action by the political branches.

PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 28, 2021.Decided on Jun 29, 2021. Petitioner: PennEast Pipeline Co. LLC.Respondent: New Jersey, et al.. Advocates: Paul D. Clement (for the Petitioner) Edwin S. Kneedler (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner) Jeremy M. Feigenbaum (for the Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 717–717Z, permits private companies to exercise the federal government’s power to take property by eminent domain, subject to certain jurisdictional requirements. PennEast Pipeline Co. obtained federal approval to build a pipeline through Pennsylvania and New Jersey and sued under the NGA to gain access to the properties along the pipeline route, of which the State of New Jersey owns 42. New Jersey sought dismissal of PennEast’s lawsuits for lack of jurisdiction based on the state’s sovereign immunity and, separately, because PennEast failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the NGA. The district court ruled in favor of PennEast and granted a preliminary injunctive relief for immediate access to the properties. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated, finding that while the NGA delegates the federal government’s eminent-domain power, it does not abrogate state sovereign immunity. PennEast’s lawsuits are thus barred by Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Question Does the Natural Gas Act delegate the federal government’s eminent-domain power, and does it abrogate state sovereign immunity in such cases? Conclusion Section 717(h) of the Natural Gas Act authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to delegate to a private company the power to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or states. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. States are generally immune from lawsuits unless they have consented or Congress has abrogated their immunity. With respect to the federal eminent domain power, the states waived their sovereign immunity when they ratified the Constitution. That power carries with it the ability to condemn property in court. Because the Natural Gas Act delegates the federal eminent domain power to private parties, those parties can initiate condemnation proceedings, including against state-owned property. This understanding is consistent with the nation’s history and the Court’s precedents. Thus, PennEast’s condemnation of New Jersey land to build the pipeline does not offend state sovereignty. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Joining Justice Barrett’s dissenting opinion in full, Justice Gorsuch added only a clarification that states have two federal-law immunities from suit: structural immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The lower court should consider whether either type of immunity bars the suit. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch joined. Justice Barrett argued that Congress’s power to strip states of their sovereign immunity is extremely limited, and there is no reason to treat private condemnation actions as within one of those limited exceptions.  

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 28, 2021.Decided on Jun 23, 2021. Petitioner: Mahanoy Area School District.Respondent: B. L., a Minor, By and Through Her Father, Lawrence Levy, and Her Mother, Betty Lou Levy. Advocates: Lisa S. Blatt (for the Petitioner) Malcolm L. Stewart (for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioner) David D. Cole (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) B.L., a student at Mahanoy Area High School (MAHS), tried out for and failed to make her high school's varsity cheerleading team, making instead only the junior varsity team. Over a weekend and away from school, she posted a picture of herself on Snapchat with the caption “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” The photo was visible to about 250 people, many of whom were MAHS students and some of whom were cheerleaders. Several students who saw the captioned photo approached the coach and expressed concern that the snap was inappropriate. The coaches decided B.L.’s snap violated team and school rules, which B.L. had acknowledged before joining the team, and she was suspended from the junior varsity team for a year. B.L. sued the school under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) that her suspension from the team violated the First Amendment; (2) that the school and team rules were overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory; and (3) that those rules were unconstitutionally vague. The district court granted summary judgment in B.L.’s favor, ruling that the school had violated her First Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. Question Does the First Amendment prohibit public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech? Conclusion The First Amendment limits but does not entirely prohibit regulation of off-campus student speech by public school officials, and, in this case, the school district’s decision to suspend B.L. from the cheerleading team for posting to social media vulgar language and gestures critical of the school violates the First Amendment. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court. Although public schools may regulate student speech and conduct on campus, the Court’s precedents make clear that students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression” when they enter campus. The Court has also recognized that schools may regulate student speech in three circumstances: (1) indecent, lewd, or vulgar speech on school grounds, (2) speech promoting illicit drug use during a class trip, and (3) speech that others may reasonably perceive as “bear[ing] the imprimatur of the school,” such as that appearing in a school-sponsored newspaper. Moreover, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), the Court held that schools may also regulate speech that “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” The school’s interests in regulating these types of student speech do not disappear when the speaker is off campus. Three features of off-campus speech diminish the need for First Amendment leeway: (1) off-campus speech normally falls within the zone of parental responsibility, rather than school responsibility, (2) off-campus speech regulations coupled with on-campus speech regulations would mean a student cannot engage in the regulated type of speech at all, and (3) the school itself has an interest in protecting a student’s unpopular off-campus expression because the free marketplace of ideas is a cornerstone of our representative democracy. In this case, B.L. spoke in circumstances where her parents, not the school, had responsibility, and her speech did not cause “substantial disruption” or threaten harm to the rights of others. Thus, her off-campus speech was protected by the First Amendment, and the school’s decision to suspend her violated her First Amendment rights. Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, explaining his understanding of the Court’s decision. Justice Alito argued that a key takeaway of the Court’s decision is that “the regulation of many types of off-premises student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns, and school officials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory.” Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that schools have historically had the authority to regulate speech when it occurs off campus, so long as it has a proximate tendency to harm the school, its faculty or students, or its programs. Justice Thomas viewed the facts of this case as falling squarely within that rule and thus would have held that the school could properly suspend B.L. for her speech.

United States v. Palomar-Santiago Wikipedia · Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 27, 2021.Decided on May 24, 2021. Petitioner: United States.Respondent: Refugio Palomar-Santiago. Advocates: Erica L. Ross (for the Petitioner) Bradley N. Garcia (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Refugio Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican national, was granted permanent resident status in the United States in 1990. In 1991, he was convicted of a felony DUI in California, and he was subsequently deported because a DUI is a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 16, and felony DUI is an aggravated felony for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43). Three years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided in United States v. Trinidad-Aquino, 259 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2001), that a DUI is not a crime of violence and later held that classification to apply retroactively. United States v. Aguilera-Rios, 769 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2013). Palomar-Santiago returned to live in the United States, this time without authorization. He was indicted for illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He moved to dismiss the indictment under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d), which requires a district court to dismiss a § 1326 indictment if the defendant proves (1) he exhausted any administrative remedies that may have been available to seek relief against the order; (2) he was deprived of the opportunity for judicial review at the deportation hearing; and (3) that the deportation order was fundamentally unfair. However, under Ninth Circuit precedent, a defendant does not need to prove the first two elements if he can show the crime underlying the original removal was improperly characterized as an aggravated felony and does not need to show the third element if he can show the removal should not have occurred at all. The district court held that Palomar-Santiago met his burden in showing his crime was improperly characterized as an aggravated felony and that he was wrongfully removed from the United States. On appeal, the federal government disputed that circuit precedent required the result the district court reached but argued that the precedent is wrong. Lacking authority to overturn circuit precedent, the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed without addressing the merits of the government’s claims. Question Is a defendant who has been charged with unlawful reentry into the United States after removal automatically entitled to the defense of invalid removal if he was removed for a crime that would not be considered a removable offense under current law in that circuit? Conclusion A defendant seeking dismissal of a prior deportation order must prove each statutory requirement for bringing such a collateral attack. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Section 1326(d) requires that defendants charged with unlawful reentry “may not” challenge their underlying removal orders “unless” they “demonstrat[e]” each of three conditions. The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation to the contrary—that the first two elements are not required if the noncitizen was removed for an offense that should not have rendered him removable—is incompatible with the text of that provision. The first element, exhaustion of administrative remedies, exists “precisely so noncitizens can challenge the substance of immigration judges’ decisions.” Additionally, all of the requirements apply regardless of whether the defendant alleges the removal order was procedurally flawed or substantively invalid.

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Apr 27, 2021.Decided on Jun 25, 2021. Petitioner: HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC, et al..Respondent: Renewable Fuels Association, et al.. Advocates: Peter D. Keisler (for the Petitioners) Christopher G. Michel (for the federal Respondent) Matthew W. Morrison (for the private Respondents) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Congress amended the Clean Air Act through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in an effort to reduce the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels. The legislation set certain targets for replacing fossil fuels with renewable fuels but created several exemptions, including one for small refineries if compliance in a given year would impose disproportionate economic hardship. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated three different orders granting extensions of the small refinery exemption, but these orders were not made publicly available. A group of renewable fuels producers challenged the orders, alleging that the orders exceeded the EPA’s statutory authority. The Tenth Circuit agreed, finding that a small refinery may obtain an exemption only when it had received uninterrupted, continuous extensions of the exemption for every year since 2011. Question To qualify for a hardship exemption under Section 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) of the Renewable Fuel Standards, must a small refinery have received uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011? Conclusion A small refinery that previously received a hardship exemption may obtain an “extension” under §7545(o)(9)(B)(i) even if it saw a lapse in exemption coverage in a previous year. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion. Although the key term “extension” is not defined in the statute, three textual clues indicate that it means an extension in time. The plain meaning of the word “extension” in a temporal sense does not require unbroken continuity. Without modifiers like “successive” or “consecutive,” nothing in the statute suggests that a lapse in coverage precludes the extension. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Justice Barrett argued that the question before the Court is simply whether the provision limits the EPA to prolonging exemptions currently in place, or instead allows the EPA to provide exemptions to refineries that lack them. Justice Barrett concluded that the text and structure of the statute make clear that the EPA cannot “extend” an exemption that a refinery no longer has.