Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Section 1252(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)—which provides that courts do not have jurisdiction to review “final orders of removal” against any noncitizen ordered removed from the country for committing certain criminal offenses—prohibits federal courts of appeals from reviewing the facts underlying orders granting or denying noncitizens relief from deportation under the United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). Under CAT, the United States cannot remove a noncitizen to a country where they are likely to be tortured. While Section 1252(a)(2)(C) strips courts of the ability to review “any final order of removal,” Nasrallah argues that CAT orders are distinct orders that fall outside this phrase. Barr, on the other hand, argues that Section 1252(a)(2)(C) intends to include CAT orders within the phrase “final order of removal” and thus limits judicial review of the facts underlying those orders. The outcome of this case will affect the number of opportunities that criminal noncitizens have to challenge the accuracy of the facts underlying a denial of their claim for CAT relief.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks whether the President of the United States is unconstitutionally restricted from removing the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”). Established through part of the Dodd-Frank Act and in response to the financial crisis in 2008, the CFPB regulates the financial markets and enforces consumer protections. The CFPB is headed by a single director who is removable by the President only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Petitioner Seila Law LLC and Respondent CFPB both argue that this removal restriction violates separation of powers because it impermissibly restricts the President’s ability to remove an executive officer. The Court-appointed Amicus Curiae maintains that so long as the President has the exclusive removal power, a modest restriction on that power is constitutional. The outcome of this case has implications on accountability mechanisms used by administrative agencies, state consumer protection regulators, and industries regulated by the CFPB.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) may obtain disgorgement in civil actions under its power to seek equitable relief, even though the Supreme Court has previously ruled that disgorgement is a penalty rather than an equitable remedy at least under some circumstances. Petitioners Liu and Wang contend that the Supreme Court ruled in Kokesh v. SEC that disgorgement was a penalty, and that therefore the SEC lacks the authority to order Liu and Wang to disgorge any ill-gotten gains in connection with their investment fund. The SEC counters that Kokesh held disgorgement to be a penalty only for statute of limitations purposes. The outcome of this case has implications on the SEC’s effectiveness in future civil actions at deterring financial crime and at making the victims of financial crime whole.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether, under the Suspension Clause, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is constitutional as applied to noncitizens who have secretly entered the United States. Petitioner Department of Homeland Security argues that noncitizens entering clandestinely, treated properly as seeking initial admission to the United States, are entitled to no due process protections; that such noncitizens are not entitled to habeas corpus under the Suspension Clause; and that even if the Suspension Clause does apply, the statute’s provision of administrative review and limited judicial review are sufficient. Respondent Thuraissigiam counters that notwithstanding the Government’s misreading of applicable law, clandestinely entering noncitizens within the United States are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment; that the Suspension Clause does apply to individuals in immigration proceedings; and that the statute provides an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus. This case has implications for states’ resource spending, revenue collection, and citizen welfare. Additionally, this case’s outcome could impact federal courts’ work load, depending on whether federal courts must open up to a new class of alien-petitioners.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Louisiana’s law, requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, comports with the Court’s precedent. The parties agree that the Louisiana law at issue in this case is substantially similar to the Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. June Medical Services argues that precedent from Whole Woman’s Health and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey control and that Louisiana’s Act is unconstitutional because it unduly burdens women seeking abortions. Doctor Rebekah Gee on behalf of Louisiana argues that June Medical Services lacks standing to bring forth a claim on behalf of their patients and further asserts that Whole Woman’s Health does not control the outcome of this case because the Louisiana Act does not unduly burden women seeking abortions. The outcome of this case has important implications on access to abortion services for women of color and could impact lower courts’ fact-finding authority.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

These two consolidated cases ask the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the Mineral Leasing Act authorizes the United States Forest Service to grant a right-of-way under the national trail system. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the Forest Service lacks authority to grant a right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline under the Appalachian Trail, which is administered by the National Park Service. The Forest Service and Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the respective Petitioners in each case, contend that the Forest Service has authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to grant a right-of-way under any trail that crosses through national forest land owned by the Forest Service. The Respondents, Cowpasture River Preservation Association et al., counter that the Appalachian Trail is National Park land and, accordingly, only Congress—not the Forest Service—may grant a right-of-way. The Court’s decision in these cases will influence future pipeline development, environmental preservation, and the economies of communities along the Appalachian Trail.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i)’s federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain is facially unconstitutional. The Petitioner, the United States, argues that these provisions do not criminalize speech protected under the First Amendment because “encourage” and “induce” refer only to the facilitation or solicitation of illegal immigration and not to protected speech. The United States thus argues that these provisions have a legitimate sweep because they primarily regulate conduct. The Respondent, Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, counters that “encourage” and “induce” have expansive meanings that extend beyond facilitative conduct. Sineneng-Smith claims that these provisions primarily function to criminalize a wide array of speech that is protected under the First Amendment. The outcome of this case will affect the ways in which citizens may advocate for immigration reform and the nature of professional immigration advice.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 contains a “three-strikes rule” holding a prisoner liable for litigation costs incurred when filing a civil lawsuit if the prisoner has had three or more prior civil lawsuits dismissed. Petitioner Arthur J. Lomax argues that a court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice does not count towards the three-strikes rule that would ban him from filing future legal complaints without filing fees. Lomax supports this argument by noting that dismissal without prejudice does not fall within the meaning of “dismissal” in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Respondent Christina Ortiz-Marquez asserts that this type of dismissal does count towards the three-strike rule because the statute does not differentiate between dismissal with or without prejudice. The Court’s decision will affect a prisoner’s ability to bring civil actions while incarcerated.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether it can retroactively apply portions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to impose punitive damages on a foreign nation. Monicah Opati seeks to recover punitive damages from the Republic of Sudan for its role in al Qaeda’s 1998 embassy bombings. Opati contends that under Republic of Austria v. Altmann, the Act’s immunity exception for foreign states applies retroactively, thereby reaching the al Qaeda bombings even though they occurred prior to the current statute’s enactment. The Republic of Sudan counters that Altmann does not apply here; and, the FSIA’s plaint text does not allow plaintiffs such as Opati to recover punitive damages retroactively under the Act’s immunity exception for foreign states. This case’s outcome implicates the amount of deference given to political branches and could change the balance between plaintiffs suing under FSIA and defendant foreign states.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the categorical approach under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) should apply to “serious drug offense” determinations. Petitioner Eddie Lee Shular argues that under the ACCA, a “serious drug offense” must be considered under the same offense-matching categorical approach that is applied to a “violent felony” under the Act. Shular further argues that the “serious drug offense” provision of the statute requires a mens rea element in the prior state offense in order to qualify under the ACCA. Respondent United States counters that the categorical approach is not applicable to the “serious drug offense” provision of the ACCA, and that a mens rea element is not a requirement under the Act. The outcome of this case will affect uniformity in the criminal justice system, constitutional avoidance, and the ability of courts to limit detrimental effects and disparate impacts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources