U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C./photo by Diego Radzinschi/NLJ

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday declined to review a closely watched equal-pay challenge but added five new cases to next term's argument docket, including a dispute between the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. House of Representatives over release of the full investigative report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller III.

The justices denied review in the Equal Pay Act case Yovino v. Rizo, leaving in place a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That appellate court had held that employers could not use prior salary as a defense to unequal pay for equal work.

"The express purpose of the act was to eradicate the practice of paying women less simply because they are women," Ninth Circuit Judge Morgan Christen wrote for the majority. "Allowing employers to escape liability by relying on employees' prior pay would defeat the purpose of the act and perpetuate the very discrimination the EPA aims to eliminate."

Lawyers from Jones Day, representing the Fresno County schools superintendent, had urged the justices to take up the Ninth Circuit's ruling. "It is particularly important to grant certiorari because employers often ask about and rely upon prior pay in setting salaries when allowed to do so," Jones Day partner Shay Dvoretzky told the justices. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other management advocates backed Fresno County's arguments at the high court.

Daniel Mark Siegel of Oakland's Siegel, Yee, Brunner & Mehta advocated for Aileen Rizo, a math consultant who alleged she was paid $10,000 less than male counterparts.

Rep. Jerrod Nadler, D-New York, chairs a House Judiciary Committee Department of Justice oversight hearing in February. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi /ALM

In the Mueller grand jury records fight, a federal trial judge in Washington, and subsequently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, said the House was entitled to that information.

"I am disappointed by the Court's decision to prolong this case further, but I am confident we will prevail," House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-New York, said in a statement. "In every administration before this one, DOJ has cooperated with the Judiciary Committee's requests for grand jury materials relating to investigations of impeachable offenses. Attorney General Barr broke from that practice, and DOJ's newly invented arguments against disclosure have failed at every level."

The justices also agreed to hear a pair of cases brought by Nestle USA and Cargill Inc. involving the extraterritorial reach of the Alien Tort Act.

Nestle is represented by Hogan Lovells partner Neal Katyal and Cargill's counsel is Mayer Brown partner Andrew Pincus. Paul Hoffman, a partner at Schonbrun Seplow Harris & Hoffman, represents a class claiming that the companies aided and abetted slavery and forced labor in violation of international law. The court joined the two cases for one hour of argument.

The justices also said they would decide whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies in two separate cases, one from Hungary and the other from Germany, stemming from the confiscation of property during World War II.

In Hungary v. Simon, Gregory Silbert of Weil, Gotshal & Manges represents Hungary; Sarah Harrington of Goldstein & Russell is counsel to Simon. In Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp, Germany is represented by Jonathan Freiman of Wiggin and Dana in New Haven, Connecticut; Philipp's counsel is Nicholas O'Donnell of Boston's Sullivan & Worcester.

In other action, the court sent two abortion-related challenges back to the lower court for consideration in light of its decision this week in June Medical Services v. Russo.

Indiana filed those cases with the same names of Box v. Planned Parenthood. Indiana had asked the court to decide whether its ultrasound requirement at least 18 hours before an abortion was constitutional, and also whether abortion physicians had third-party standing to bring claims on behalf of their patients.

In a third abortion-related case, Yost v. Planned Parenthood, the justices on Thursday declined to review Ohio's challenge to a $372,000 legal fee award to Planned Parenthood in which the state argued that plaintiffs who win preliminary injunctions in cases that end without a final judgment are not "prevailing parties" eligible for legal fees under a civil rights fee-shifting statute.

Read more:

Roberts Sharply Counters Criticism of His Vote Striking Down Louisiana Abortion Law

9th Circuit: Employers Can't Rely on Prior Pay to Justify Gender Disparities

Ohio Wants US Supreme Court to Reverse Legal Fee Award in Abortion Rights Case

In New Stance, DOJ Asks Justices to Shield Domestic Companies From 'Alien Tort' Liability