A Spotlight on Five SCOTUS Cases
The 2019-2020 term is poised to deliver potentially blockbuster rulings on immigration and employment rights. Here's a quick look at some cases argued so far.
January 30, 2020 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
Immigration: Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher's Ted Olson argued against the Trump administration's move to end the Obama-era program Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, benefiting some 700,000 individuals who arrived in the U.S. as minors. The case doesn't test the merits of the program but, rather, whether Trump agency officials took lawful steps to unwind the program. Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil Gorsuch both raised questions at the Nov. 12 argument confronting the Trump administration's justifications. Roberts at one point asked U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, "What if the attorney general said he, in his exercise of prosecutorial discretion, was not going to enforce any of the immigration laws? Would that still be non-reviewable?" Francisco said an exception would apply to that scenario, which he described as a "complete abdication of authority." California Solicitor General Michael Mongan, making his high court debut, argued for Democratic-led states in support of DACA.
Affordable Care Act: Maine Community Health Options v. United States
Kirkland & Ellis' Paul Clement, who led previous challenges to the Affordable Care Act, was back at the court in December—arguing instead in support of the law. Or at least a provision that required, as he claimed, the government to fulfill a promise to cover certain losses to insurers that participated in the health exchange markets. The U.S. Justice Department faced a skeptical U.S. Supreme Court over arguments that the government had no obligation to pay $12 billion in losses incurred by insurance companies. Clement, at the Dec. 10 hearing, called the government's failures to pay out a "massive bait and switch."
LGBT Employment Rights: R.G. and G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, Bostock v. Clayton County and Altitude Express v. Zarda
The justices on Oct. 8 heard a trio of cases that confront the scope of Title VII rights for gay, lesbian and transgender workers. At issue was the language "because of sex" in the law's prohibition of sexual discrimination. The Trump administration argued for a narrow interpretation. Stanford Law School's Pam Karlan pushed the justices to read the statute as it appears. "The textual evidence is very close" on whether the law does bar discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity, Justice Neil Gorsuch said during the oral arguments. Where Gorsuch might see some ambiguity in the text, Justice Elena Kagan saw clarity. "Title VII is a statute about individuals," Kagan said. "Is a particular person being treated differently because of her sex? It's as simple as looking at the language of the statute," Kagan said.
Civil Rights: Comcast v. National Association of African American-Owned Media
Two media companies faced off Nov. 13 in a case involving one of the nation's oldest civil rights laws. Originally part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 prohibits racial discrimination in contracting. Entertainment Studio Networks, represented by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley School of Law, is owned by African American entrepreneur and entertainer Byron Allen. Allen has alleged Comcast Corp., represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Miguel Estrada, gave "pretextual" reasons for declining to carry Studio Networks channels. "All eyes should be on this critical case," Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said in a statement. "An adverse decision by the Supreme Court could imperil the integrity of section 1981 as a tool for protecting the full economic and legal rights of black people." In the government's amicus brief, backing Comcast, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco said the outcome of the case could have repercussions for other federal anti-discrimination laws.
Second Amendment: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York City
Argued Dec. 2, one of the central issues of this case is whether there's even a case at all. The Supreme Court last year said it would take up the dispute, involving a New York City law—but that provision, restricting the movement of firearms, was scrapped after the justices said they'd review a lower court ruling upholding the law. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito Jr. appeared to strive to save the U.S. Supreme Court's first major gun rights case in nearly a decade from disappearing without a ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment. Groups supporting broad firearm rights, critical of how lower courts have applied the Second Amendment, have urged the court to use the case to announce a tough standard or test that governments must meet in order for regulations to be upheld as constitutional. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, questioning Kirkland & Ellis partner Paul Clement, lead counsel for the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, said the new state law blocks whatever the city attempted to do. "What's left of this case?" she asked. "Petitioners have gotten all that they sought."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJustices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Supreme Court Drops Facebook's Appeal in Securities Case as 'Improvidently Granted'
Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1$34M Verdict Shows How 1 Claim Could Ratchet Up Employment Suit
- 2OIG Progress Puts Connecticut in Leadership Position
- 3Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 4Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 5Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250