Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1*

Issues

Whether a school district’s decision to admit a student to a desegregated high school based on that student’s race, in an effort to achieve a racial balance within the school and therefore foster diversity in the educational setting, violates that student’s Equal Protection rights given by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Seattle School District No. 1 uses an “open choice” plan in which students rank their preferred schools. When a student’s first choice cannot be accommodated, the District uses race as a tiebreaker in order to achieve a desired racial balance in each individual school. Parents Involved in Community Schools, a non-profit organization, argues that the District’s policy amounts to unconstitutional racial balancing under the Supreme Court’s 2003 decisions in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003). The District, however, argues that its consideration of race is to further the compelling state interest of achieving the beneficial effects of racial diversity. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the District had a compelling state interest in achieving the benefits of racial diversity and that its plan was narrowly tailored. The Supreme Court will now review that determination in light of its Equal Protection decisions in Grutter and Gratz and is asked to decide whether racial diversity in high schools is a compelling state interest.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. How are the Equal Protection rights of public high school students affected by the jurisprudence of Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)?
  2. Is racial diversity a compelling interest that can justify the use of race in selecting students for admission to public high schools?
  3. May a school district that is not racially segregated and that normally permits a student to attend any high school of her choosing deny a child admission to her chosen school solely because of her race in an effort to achieve a desired racial balance in particular schools, or does such racial balancing violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

This case was brought by a non-profit organization, Parents Involved in Community Schools (“PICS”), representing parents of students in the Seattle School District (“District”) who objected to the school district’s use of race as a tiebreaker for admission to schools as violating the Equal Protection Clause.

Submit for publication
0

Trump v. Hawaii

Issues

Can the president lawfully prevent foreign nationals from certain Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States?

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13769, which temporarily banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority nations from immigrating to the United States. Various states challenged the executive order on grounds of religious discrimination. In March of 2017, the president signed Executive Order 13780, and in September 2017 he issued a third iteration of the order via presidential proclamation. The proclamation affects the immigration and visa rights of nationals of eight different Muslim-majority countries. President Trump argues that the proclamation is a proper application of his executive authority, and that it accords with the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. Hawaii contends that the proclamation is motivated in part by religious discrimination and is therefore unconstitutional. The outcome of the case could significantly impact existing immigration policy, as well as determine the scope of the Executive’s power to implement and enforce such policy.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.

On January 27, 2017, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 13769 (“EO-1”), which placed significant immigration restrictions on foreign nationals from seven Muslim-majority countries. Hawaii v. Trump, 878 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Animal Science Products, Inc., et al., v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al.

Issues

Is a court bound to defer to a foreign government’s interpretation of its domestic law when appearing before the court?

 

This case will decide whether American courts are bound to accept a foreign government’s interpretation of its own laws. Animal Science Products Inc. (“Animal Science Products”) argues that a “binding deference standard”, which requires courts to accept an appearing foreign government’s description of its laws, inhibits a court’s ability to independently reach an accurate determination of foreign law. Furthermore, Animal Science contends, the lower court’s decision to uphold binding deference misapplied the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Pink. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals (“Hebei”) counters that requiring courts to accept an appearing foreign government’s reasonable statement of its laws appropriately balances judicial independence and international comity concerns. Moreover, Hebei asserts that the court below was correct in finding United States v. Pink to support binding deference. This issue affects how federal courts interpret foreign law in international litigation. Accordingly, this case will impact international litigation strategy and entities with operations that are regulated outside of the U.S.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a court may exercise independent review of an appearing foreign sovereign’s interpretation of its domestic law (as held by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits), or whether a court is “bound to defer” to a foreign government’s legal statement, as a matter of international comity, whenever the foreign government appears before the court (as held by the opinion below in accord with the Ninth Circuit).

In 2005, Animal Science Products, Inc. and various Vitamin C producers in the United States (“Animal Science Products”) filed suit in the Eastern District of New York against Hebei Welcome Pharmaceuticals Co. (“Hebei”), a Chinese pharmaceutical company and its holding company, alleging that Hebei was a co-conspirator who established an illegal cartel for price-fixing purposes. Animal Science Products, Inc., et al. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., 837 F.3d 175, 179 (2d Cir. 2016) at 5–6.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Abbot v. Perez

Issues

By adopting court-created remedial interim redistricting plans, did the Texas legislature engage in intentional racial discrimination, vote dilution, and racial gerrymandering in violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, and does the Court have jurisdiction to hear the case?

 

After a federal court struck down the Texas State Legislature’s redistricting plans as racially discriminatory and issued substantially similar interim plans for the 2012 election, the Legislature adopted those interim plans as law. However, Texas Voters (both individual voters and organizations) claim that these plans are still infected by discriminatory intent and effect. Texas argues that its Legislature did not engage in racial discrimination, vote dilution, or racial gerrymandering. Further, Texas insists that when its new Legislature repealed the old plans and adopted court-created new plans, any purported discriminatory intent was eliminated. Voters counter that the Supreme Court should adhere to the lower court’s finding of discrimination, which was not cleansed by a legislative workaround that essentially reenacted the original, problematic plans. This case requires the Supreme Court to determine when a state legislature exhibits a discriminatory intent in reconfiguring its electoral districts and how deeply that intent permeates into subsequent legislation. Further, this case may redefine the parameters for courts to evaluate redistricting, balancing the needs to protect voters’ rights and preserve state sovereignty. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1) Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw state congressional districts unless the governor called a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map within three days; (2) whether the Texas legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted a redistricting plan originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect; (3) whether the Texas legislature engaged in intentional vote dilution when it adopted Congressional District 27 in 2013 after the district court found, in 2012, that CD27 did not support a plausible claim of racially discriminatory purpose and did not dilute Hispanic voting strength because it was not possible to create an additional Hispanic opportunity district in the region; and (4) whether the Texas legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering in Congressional District 35 when it simply adopted the district unchanged as part of the court-ordered remedial plan.

In 2011, Texas’ 82nd Legislature (“Legislature”) proposed Plans C185 and H283 (“2011 Plans”) to change its voting districts before the 2012 elections. Perez v. Abbott, 274 F. Supp. 3d 624, 632 (W.D. Tex. 2017).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Pereira v. Sessions

Issues

Whether a notice to appear in immigration removal proceedings must include all information listed in the statutory definition of a notice to appear, including the date and time of the proceedings, in order for the stop-time rule to be invoked.

 

The “stop-time rule” states that an alien’s period of continuous physical presence is interrupted after the government serves the alien with a notice to appear.  The Court will determine in this case whether a notice to appear must include the time and location of the immigration removal proceedings in order to invoke the stop-time rule. Pereira argues that the statutory text, structure, and legislative history indicate that a notice to appear must contain all of the information listed in its statutory definition and contends that the Court should not defer to the interpretation of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) because the BIA’s interpretation is unreasonable. Sessions counters that the statutory text, legislative history, and purpose demonstrate that a valid notice to appear does not need to contain such information and asserts that the Court should defer to the BIA’s reasonable interpretation of the statute. From a policy perspective, this case is significant because it will impact the ability of certain immigrants to cancel their removal and may affect the practices of immigration courts nationwide.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, to trigger the stop-time rule by serving a “notice to appear,” the government must “specify” the items listed in the definition of a “notice to appear,” including “[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.”

Wescley Fonseca Pereira (“Pereira”) came to the United States from Brazil in June 2000 on a non-immigrant visitor visa that allowed him to stay in the country until December 21, 2000. Pereira v. Sessions, 866 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 2017). Pereira overstayed his visa and received a notice to appear from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) in May 2006, less than six years after he entered the United States.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Issues

For the purposes of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, are administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission officers, who must be appointed in accordance with the Constitution, or employees, who can simply be hired by the Securities and Exchange Commission?

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) are “Officers of the United States” within the meaning of the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. If the SEC ALJs are officers, then they cannot simply be hired like a regular government employee; instead, they must be hired according to the procedures required by the Appointments Clause. The SEC successfully argued before the D.C. Circuit that the ALJs are not officers; but following the election of President Trump, the U.S. Solicitor general switched the SEC’s position in this case. Both Raymond J. Lucia and the SEC now agree that the SEC ALJs are officers within the meaning of the Appointments Clause because the SEC ALJs have enough sovereign authority entrusted to their discretion to require the structural power-check of the appointment process. Anton Metlitsky, the Court-appointed amicus supporting the judgment below, argues that SEC ALJs are not officers because they do not have the power to make final decisions that bind either the SEC or third parties. The Court’s holding in this case could greatly impact the SEC’s enforcement regime and all the proceedings currently pending before SEC ALJs.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause?

In response to a Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) enforcement action before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), Raymond J. Lucia and his investment company, Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. (collectively, “Lucia”) challenged the constitutional validity of the SEC’s ALJs. Raymond J. Lucia Companies, Inc. v. SEC, 832 F.3d 277, 282–83 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Chavez-Meza v. United States

Issues

Is a district court deciding not to grant a post-sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) in proportion to the amended Federal Sentencing Guidelines required to provide an explanation, or is no explanation necessary so long as the court uses a preprinted form order that provides a policy statement and certifies the applicable sentencing factors?

 

The Supreme Court will decide whether a court, in deciding not to grant a discretionary post-judgment sentencing revision under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in proportion to the amended Federal Sentencing Guidelines, must provide an explanation or can issue its decision through a preprinted form order containing standardized language. The Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Circuits have held that § 3582(c)(2) does not require a judge to provide an explanation when refusing to grant a motion for a proportional sentencing reduction in accordance with the amended Guidelines. The Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, however, have found that judges are required to explain sentencing revision decisions. Petitioner Chavez-Meza argues that a judge must provide some explanation for a disproportional sentencing reduction when the reasons for the decision are not apparent from the record. Respondent United States argues that judges can use preprinted forms when granting sentencing revisions that are disproportional to the Guideline revisions, as long as the form order contains standardized language stating that the court has considered the policy and applicable factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). This case will clarify the extent to which application of the amended Guidelines reflects a bipartisan shift away from punitive sentences for drug offenses.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, when a district court decides not to grant a proportional sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), it must provide some explanation for its decision when the reasons are not otherwise apparent from the record, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or whether it can issue its decision without any explanation so long as it is issued on a preprinted form order containing the boilerplate language providing that the court has “tak[en] into account the policy statement set forth in U.S.S.G. § lBl.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable," as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Circuits have held.

Following an investigation and sting operation in 2012, federal authorities arrested Petitioner Adaucto Chavez-Meza on charges of conspiring with the Sinaloa Cartel to distribute methamphetamine in the United States.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Jody Godoy, Judges to Weigh Resentencing Under New Guidelines, Law360 (January 16, 2018)

Submit for publication
0

Lagos v. United States

Issues

Does the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act require restitution for costs incurred for private-party investigations not required or requested by the government?

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide if the Mandatory Victim’s Restitution Act requires or permits an order of restitution against a criminal defendant for a private party’s costs of investigating the underlying crime without a request from the government. Lagos argues that the text of the statute and its legislative context and history preclude such costs from being eligible for restitution. In contrast, the Government argues that the overarching goal of restitution pairs with the text of the statute to permit a broad definition of eligible expenses, including private investigations. Underlying these legal issues is a delicate balance of rights, with the Government supporting restitution in order to help victims recover from crime, and opponents worrying that large restitution awards would prevent defendants from achieving full rehabilitation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers costs for reimbursement under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act that were “neither required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim's own purposes and unprompted by any official government action.

Petitioner Sergio Fernando Lagos (“Lagos”) was owner and CEO of a holding company that owned USA Dry Van Logistics LLC (“Dry Van”). Brief for Respondent, United States, at 2. Dry Van was holder of a revolving-loan finance agreement, secured by their accounts receivable, with General Electric Capital Corporation (“GE Capital”).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States

Issues

Are stock options granted by railroads to their employees taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1)?

The Supreme Court will determine whether stock that a railroad transfers to its employees is taxable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (“RRTA”), 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1). Petitioners Wisconsin Central Ltd. et al. (“Wisconsin Central”) argue that Congress enacted the RRTA to create a retirement program separate and distinct from the program created under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”). Wisconsin Central further asserts that when interpreting the RRTA as Congress intended at the time of enactment, stock transfers from railroad employers to employees were not considered as “compensation.” Finally, Wisconsin Central contends that the Court should not give weight to the exceptions added after the RRTA’s enactment in determining the original definition of “money remuneration” and that those exceptions are not rendered “surplusage” when using the medium-of-exchange definition for money. Respondent United States (“Government”) responds that Congress intended the RRTA’s tax structure to align with FICA’s—which taxes non-qualified stock options—by defining “compensation” as “any form of money remuneration,” which includes stock. The Government maintains that Congress added exceptions to the RRTA to help clarify the statute’s meaning; and, here the language indicates that “money” includes non-cash payments such as non-qualified stock options. Although Wisconsin Central and its supporters contend that stock-based compensation is a valuable form of compensation that rewards employee work, the Government worries that excluding stock from the definition of “money” will promote circumvention of the RRTA tax through strategic structuring of employee compensation plans.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether stock that a railroad transfers to its employees is taxable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1).

Wisconsin Central Limited, Grand Trunk Western Railroad Company, and Illinois Central Railroad Company (“Wisconsin Central”) are rail carriers and subsidiaries of the Canadian National Railway Company (“Canadian National”) that operate primarily in the Midwest and Mississippi Valley. Wisconsin Cent. Ltd. v. United States, 194 F. Supp. 3d 728, 731 (N.D. Ill.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Washington v. United States

Issues

Do treaties between the State of Washington and Native American Tribes require Washington to protect the salmon population from land development; and, if so, must Washington pay to undo the development when the development was ordered by the United States and undoing it may not increase the salmon population?

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether treaties between the State of Washington (“Washington” or “the state”) and Native American tribes (“the Tribes”) guaranteeing the Tribes the right to fish in certain areas of the state require Washington to protect salmon against despoliation from land development. The present case arises out of a series of barrier culverts—tunnels that allow water to pass underneath roads but prevent fish from passing—that Washington constructed, some pursuant to federal specifications. The culverts prevent salmon from returning, thus inhibiting the Tribes’ ability to fish. Washington argues that the treaties were not created to address such environmental concerns. Moreover, Washington argues that it is not fair for it to be forced to replace the culverts, because the culverts were part of a federally-initiated roadbuilding program, and their design was suggested by the United States. Further, Washington argues that replacing the barrier culverts would not increase the salmon population. The United States and the Tribes disagree, asserting that the parties to the treaties intended to protect the salmon population against man-made despoliation. The United States and the Tribes also assert that no one forced Washington to create the culverts using the design that blocks salmon re-entry and that replacing those culverts would benefit the salmon population. At stake are the future of the salmon populations near the Tribes and potential limitations on state powers to make regulatory decisions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a treaty “right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations ... in common with all citizens” guaranteed “that the number of fish would always be sufficient to provide a ‘moderate living’ to the tribes”; (2) whether the district court erred in dismissing the state's equitable defenses against the federal government where the federal government signed these treaties in the 1850s, for decades told the state to design culverts a particular way, and then filed suit in 2001 claiming that the culvert design it provided violates the treaties it signed; and (3) whether the district court’s injunction violates federalism and comity principles by requiring Washington to replace hundreds of culverts, at a cost of several billion dollars, when many of the replacements will have no impact on salmon, and plaintiffs showed no clear connection between culvert replacement and tribal fisheries.

In the mid-eighteenth century, Native American Tribes of the Pacific Northwest entered into a series of treaties whereby they relinquished territory but were guaranteed a right to off-reservation fishing. United States v. Washington, No. 13-35474, at 11–12 (9th Cir. 2017). Every treaty contained a “fishing clause,” which guaranteed “the right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations . . .

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

 

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to