SCOTUScast

On December 10, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association. The question presented was whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) pre-empts the State of Arkansas’ Act 900, which regulates the price at which pharmacy benefit managers reimburse pharmacies for the cost of drugs covered by prescription-drug plans. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that ERISA preemption applied. By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court reversed that judgment and remanded the case. Writing for the Court, Justice Sotomayor indicated that Act 900 “has neither an impermissible connection with nor reference to ERISA and is therefore not pre-empted.”Justice Sotomayor’s opinion was joined by all other members of the Court except Justice Barrett, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.Max Schulman, an Associate at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, joins us today to discuss this ruling.

On December 1 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Cargill v. Doe I. There were two legal questions before the Court. The first was whether the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute is displaced by allegations that a U.S. company generally conducted oversight of its foreign operations at its headquarters and made operational and financial decisions there, even though the conduct alleged to violate international law occurred in – and the plaintiffs suffered their injuries in – a foreign country. The second question before the Court was whether a domestic corporation is subject to liability in a private action under the Alien Tort Statute.David Rybicki is Partner at K&L Gates LLP. He joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument.

On December 10, 2020 the Supreme Court decided the case of Tanzin v. Tanvir. In an 8-0 ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that "appropriate relief" under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) includes claims for money damages against government officials in their individual capacities.Stephanie Taub, Senior Counsel at First Liberty, joins us to discuss the ruling and its implications.

On December 2, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Edwards v. Vannoy. The question before the court was whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.William S. McClintock is an Associate at King & Spalding LLP. He joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument.

On November 30, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Van Buren v. United States. The question before the court was whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.Orin Kerr is a Professor of Law at UC Berkeley School of Law and he joins us to discuss this case’s oral argument.

On November 30, 2020 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Trump v. New York. The first legal question before the Court was whether a group of states and local governments have standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge a July 21, 2020, memorandum by President Donald Trump instructing the secretary of commerce to include in his report on the 2020 census information enabling the president to exclude noncitizens from the base population number for purposes of apportioning seats in the House of Representatives. The second legal question before the court was whether the memorandum is a permissible exercise of the president’s discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment. Professor John S. Baker joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument. Professor Baker is Professor Emeritus at Lousiana State University's Paul M. Hebert Law Center.

On November 2, 2020 the Supreme Court decided Taylor v. Riojas, holding that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit erred in granting qualified immunity to correctional officers sued by inmate Trent Taylor regarding the conditions of his confinement in a Texas prison.Taylor alleged that the officers knowingly confined him for six days in cells so grossly unsanitary as to violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. He contends that the cells were covered in human waste, that he was forced to sleep naked in raw sewage, and that the high risk of contamination prevented him from eating or drinking for nearly four days. The Fifth Circuit rejected Taylor’s challenge, reasoning that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity from suit because it was not “clearly established” by court doctrine that the specific conditions of Taylor’s confinement would have violated the Eighth Amendment.The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case. “No reasonable correctional officer,” the Court indicated, “could have concluded that, under the extreme circumstances of this case, it was constitutionally permissible to house Taylor in such deplorably unsanitary conditions for such an extended period of time.”Although the Court’s opinion was issued per curiam, it was noted that Justice Thomas dissented and Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Justice Alito issued an opinion concurring in the judgment.Katherine Mims Crocker, Assistant Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.

On November 10, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Texas v. California. The issues before the court were whether the unconstitutional individual mandate to purchase minimum essential coverage is severable from the remainder of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as well as whether the district court properly declared the ACA invalid in its entirety and unenforceable anywhere. Iyla Somin joins us for this special, extended edition episode of SCOTUScast. Mr. Somin is a Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School of George Mason University.

On November 4, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. There were three questions before the court. The first was whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim — namely that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views — as two circuits have held, or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable, as six circuits have held. The second was whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited. The third was whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs.Mark Rienzi joins us today to discuss this case’s oral argument. Mr. Rienzi is President of The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law

On November 3, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Borden v. United States. The question before the court was whether the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act encompasses crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness.Joining us to discuss this case’s oral argument is Kent Scheidegger. Mr. Scheidegger is the Legal Director & General Counsel at Criminal Justice Legal Foundation