SCOTUScast

On June 30, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana was reversed and the case remanded.Chief Justice Roberts' majority opinion was joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Gorsuch also filed concurring opinions. Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Justice Kagan. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justice Kagan as to Part I. Justice Sotomayor also filed a dissenting opinion.To discuss the case, we have Michael Bindas, Senior Attorney at the Institute for Justice.

On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court decided Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a case that raises separation of power questions regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Specifically the Court ruled on whether Congress’s law that created the CFPB can stipulate that the President could not remove the Bureau’s director “at will”. Seila Law, a law firm based in CA specializing in debt relief services, was being investigated by CFPB after being alleged of violating telemarketing sales rules. Seila Law challenged the CFPB’s authority to investigate their firm, maintaining the CFPB’s structure, namely its director’s immunity from “at will” removal by the President, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Seila Law, finding Congress’s insulation of the Bureau’s director from at will removal did indeed violate the separation of powers. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority’s opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed an opinion concurring in the judgement with regard to severability and dissenting in part in which Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined. Joining us to discuss this case and its implications are John Eastman, Henry Salvatori Profesor of Law and Community Service and Director of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at Chapman University’s school of Law, and Brian Johnson, partner at Alston & Bird.

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court released its decision in the case of Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California. By a vote of 5-4, the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DHS v. Regents) was vacated in part and reversed in part, the judgment of the D.C. Circuit (Trump v. NAACP) was affirmed, and various orders of the Second Circuit (Wolf v. Vidal) were vacated, affirmed in part, or reversed in part. All the cases are remanded. The Chief Justice's opinion for the Court was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan in full, and by Justice Sotomayor as to all but Part IV. Justice Sotomayor concurred in part, concurred in the judgment in part, and dissented in part. Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment in part and dissented in part, joined by Justices Alito and Gorsuch. Justices Alito and Kavanaugh also filed opinions concurring on the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Our expert selection of speakers will discuss the decision and implications for the future.To discuss the case, on this special panel episode, we have: Dr. John C. Eastman, Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service and Director, Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Chapman University Fowler School of LawChristopher Hajec, Director of Litigation at the Immigration Reform Law InstituteMario Loyola, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise InstituteWilliam A. Stock, Partner at Klasko Immigration Law Partners, LLP

On June 15, by a vote of 6-3 the Supreme Court released its decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (combined with Altitude Inc. v. Zarda and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc.), the Supreme Court affirmed that the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit was reversed, and the case remanded (and the judgments of the Second Circuit in Altitude Express and the Sixth Circuit in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes are affirmed).Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh. To discuss the case, we have Curt Levey, President of the Committee for Justice.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 14, 2020, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor the Supreme Court, in a vote of 9-0, reversed and remanded the case Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Group holding:Because the trademark action at issue challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from an earlier action between the parties, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses, including a defense that Lucky Brand failed to press fully in the earlier suit.To discuss the case, we have Paul Stancil, Professor of Law at Bingham Young University.

On June 1, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, in GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC.By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the 11th Circuit. Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, held that “The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories to those agreements.” Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion.To discuss the case, we have Sadie Blanchard, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 13, 2020, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a pair of cases concerning the Electoral College.In Colorado Department of State v. Baca, the Court will consider the claim of a presidential elector in Colorado who attempted to vote for someone other than Hillary Clinton, despite the fact that Hillary Clinton won Colorado's popular vote, and was replaced by another elector.In Chiafalo v. Washington, the Court will hear the claims of three presidential electors who were each fined $1000 after they voted for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton in 2016, who also won Washington's popular vote. The cases will examine state power to regulate the actions of presidential electors and could affect how electors behave in the 2020 election. To discuss the cases, we have Michael Morley, Assistant Professor at Florida State University College of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On Dec. 10, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, a case involving a dispute over whether making a formal objection after pronouncement of the defendant’s sentence is necessary to invoke appellate review of the reasonableness of the sentence’s length.In 2016, Petitioner Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez pled guilty in federal district court to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, and was sentenced to 24 months of imprisonment followed by two years of supervised release. As a citizen of Mexico, he also admitted to being unlawfully present in the United States. In October 2017, after completing his term of incarceration and starting his supervised release, Holguin-Hernandez was removed from the United States. In addition to the condition that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime, the terms of supervised release required that Holguin-Hernandez not illegally reenter the United States. In November 2017, was arrested by Border Patrol agents, admitted having carried marijuana into the U.S. from Mexico, and again pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to 60 months of imprisonment and 5 more years of supervised release. The U.S. Probation office then alleged that Holguin-Hernandez had violated the terms of supervised release relating to his initial conviction and sought revocation. In a subsequent hearing he admitted the violations and was sentenced to 12 months of imprisonment, to run consecutively to the 60-month term of imprisonment for the second drug trafficking offense. Although Holguin-Hernandez’s counsel argued against a consecutive sentence during the hearing as unnecessary in light of the considerably longer drug trafficking one, she did not formally object or seek reconsideration after the judge imposed the revocation sentence.On appeal the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the sentence. Although Holguin-Hernandez argued that his sentence was longer than necessary to effectuate the statutory factors to be considered when imposing a sentence, the Court reasoned that he had not actually raised that objection in district court and therefore the sentence would be reviewed for plain error only. The Court found no plain error, indicating that the sentence fell within the Guidelines range and noting the Guidelines recommendation that a term of imprisonment for violation of supervised release be imposed consecutively to any other term the defendant might be serving. Other federal circuit courts of appeals had taken a different approach, however, and the Supreme Court subsequently granted certiorari to address whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.To discuss the case, we have Daniel Guarnera, Associate at Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 11, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in McGirt v. Oklahoma, which involves a dispute over whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.Petitioner Jimcy McGirt was found guilty of one count of first degree rape by instrumentation, one count of lewd molestation, and one count of forcible sodomy. McGirt was sentenced to 500 years in prison without parole. On appeal, the Oklahoma Court declined to review McGirt’s petition. He then filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Oklahoma courts lacked jurisdiction because the crimes occurred in Indian Country where McGirt was a member of the Creek Nations of Oklahoma.To discuss the case, we have Troy Eid, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig LLP.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

On May 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the consolidated cases of Trump v. Pennsylvania and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, which involve a dispute over:(1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.To discuss the case, we have Erin Hawley, Senior Fellow at the Kinder Institute for Constitutional Democracy at the University of Missouri and former professor of law at the University of Missouri School of Law.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.