Issues

When Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ("IIRIRA") in 1996, it did so partly with the intention of making it more difficult for aliens to remain in United States when an agency had deemed they must be removed; the IIRIRA thus contained stricter standards for judicial courts to follow when overruling an agency and allowing such aliens to remain in the country. At issue is how far Congress went in creating stricter standards, and which traditional standards it maintained. Petitioner Jean Marc Nken, an alien who applied for asylum in the U.S., was ordered to leave the country, and filed a motion for a stay of removal pending appeal of his case. The Fourth Circuit, instead of applying a traditional, four-factored test to determine whether to grant the stay, applied Section 1252(f)(2) of IIRIRA, which bars judges from enjoining the removal of aliens unless the alien can clearly show that the removal is prohibited by law. Petitioner appealed, contending that Section 1252(f)(2) was not intended to apply to motions for stays, and instead was only meant to apply to motions for injunctions. How the Supreme Court rules will determine the proper way to interpret IIRIRA, determine how much power judicial courts have over federal agencies once they have made decisions in aliens' cases, and impact both national security concerns  and petitioners fighting the decision to deport them.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Manoj Nijhawan was convicted of conspiracy to commit bank, mail, and wire fraud, and for conspiracy to commit money laundering. Upon his conviction, Immigration Court proceedings were brought against him and he was found to be subject to deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) ("Subsection (M)(i)"). Subsection (M)(i) provides that an "aggravated felony," for purposes of deportation, includes a conviction for "an offense that (i) involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim exceeds $10,000." On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that the loss determination used for sentencing was sufficient to meet the loss requirement under Subsection (M)(i), even though it was not a necessary element of his conviction. Nijhawan challenges this ruling arguing that both the "fraud or deceit" and "loss" elements must be found by a jury in order for Subsection (M)(i) to apply. Accordingly, he argues that he cannot be deported because the elements of the criminal statute under which he was convicted do not match those required for deportation under Subsection (M)(i). The United States argues that the loss element follows a "qualifier" and therefore need not be an element of the conviction for Subsection (M)(i) to apply.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In November 2012, Lester Nichols flew from Kansas City, Kansas, to Manila, Philippines. Nichols, a registered sex offender, did not update his registration status in Kansas City prior to his departure. In December 2012, Manila law enforcement officers arrested Nichols, and transferred him to the United States’ custody. The United States then charged Nichols for failing to comply with the registration requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). The Supreme Court will decide whether SORNA requires sex offenders who move to foreign countries to update their registration status in the U.S. jurisdiction where they used to reside. Nichols argues that a sex offender who moves to a foreign jurisdiction does not need to update his or her registration status. The United States maintains that SORNA aims to regulate offenders who move abroad.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Margarita Lopez Torres, nine other judicial candidates, and voters sued the New York State Board of Elections in federal court, claiming that state election laws regulating judicial elections violated the First Amendment rights of party members and candidates. Torres claimed that the state-mandated system by which parties elect nominees makes it impossible, in practice, for candidates without party backing to gain access to the party nomination ballot. In particular, Torres argued that the system enables party leaders to exert control over the nomination process, creating an environment ripe for abuse of judicial independence. As an example of such abuses, Torres offered her experiences as a judicial candidate: despite enjoying popular support in civil court elections, she failed in multiple district elections to receive the nomination of her party after refusing to follow the demands of party leaders.

After reviewing evidence of the lack of competitive elections and the difficulty of gaining access to the nomination ballot without party support, the Eastern District of New York agreed that New York's election laws violated the First Amendment associational rights of voters and candidates. The district granted a preliminary injunction mandating primary elections for party voters to select candidates. The Second Circuit affirmed, ruling that the District Court had acted within its discretion. The New York State Board of Elections ("New York State Board") now appeals, arguing that political parties' First Amendment rights are infringed by the lower courts' holding. The New York State Board further argues that the district court's remedy violates the First Amendment rights of political parties to control their intra-party nomination process. At issue in this case are the competing First Amendment rights of party members, candidates, and political parties during a party's candidate selection process. The Supreme Court decision will better define the scope of these rights in a unique situation: an intra-party nomination convention that is mandated and closely regulated by state law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case will help decide the bounds of the voter list-maintenance processes allowed under 52 U.S.C. § 20507. Petitioner Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted argues that Ohio’s “Supplemental Process” for removing voters from its lists, which addresses voters who have not been active in the last two years, is authorized under § 20507 because it does not use the failure to vote as the only basis for removal. In contrast, Respondents A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, and Larry Harmon (collectively “Randolph”) argue that Ohio’s Supplemental Process violates §20507 because it uses the failure to vote to initiate the removal process. The decision in this case has far-reaching implications for voter engagement and participation. Husted contends that the Supplemental Process is an important tool in fighting voter fraud, whereas Randolph maintains that the Process may disenfranchise minority voters and eligible voters who decide not to vote, harming the perceived integrity of the democratic process.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case, in which a police officer searched a stolen motorcycle on private property without a warrant, encapsulates a battle between two conflicting Fourth Amendment doctrines. Collins, arrested for receiving stolen property, argues that the police are forbidden from conducting a warrantless search of the area surrounding his home—the curtilage, which receives the same special constitutional protections as the home itself. Collins maintains that allowing the police to search his curtilage erodes Fourth Amendment rights and eliminates an important constitutional constraint on searches. Virginia counters that the officer’s search was justified by the automobile exception because, people have lowered expectations of privacy in their automobiles, which are heavily regulated property. Furthermore, as automobiles can be quickly moved out of a warrant’s jurisdiction, Virginia contends that requiring the police to wait for a warrant is impractical and would impede police investigations. How the Court decides on the constitutionality of the search will determine whether the automobile exception applies to vehicles on private property, or if that exception is superseded by the protections of curtilage.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Terrence Byrd was pulled over by a Pennsylvania police officer for violating a state driving law. Eventually, the officer and another police officer discovered that Byrd was driving a rental car but was not a named driver on the rental agreement. Moreover, the officers also discovered that Byrd had a criminal record that included drug, weapon, and assault charges. Ultimately, the officers asked Byrd for permission to search the car, which they assert that Byrd granted, and, the officers found both heroin and illegal body armor in the car. Byrd challenged the stop and search arguing that it was unlawful. The District Court held that the stop and search was lawful. On appeal, the Third Circuit further recognized that the driver of a rental car who is not listed on the rental agreement did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The Supreme Court will likely resolve the Circuit conflict regarding whether a reasonable expectation of privacy exists for a driver in sole possession of a rental vehicle that is not listed as a driver on the rental agreement.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether it should equitably apportion the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin between Georgia and Florida. There is a long history of conflict between the states over Georgia’s use of water from the Chattahoochee and Flint rivers. Florida argues that the Supreme Court should impose a water consumption cap on Georgia because Georgia’s unreasonable water consumption inflicts real harm on Florida and its ecosystems. Georgia counters that Florida is not entitled to relief in this original jurisdiction action because Florida has not proven that the consumption cap will provide effective redress and Florida has failed to include a necessary party in the litigation. Florida contends that Georgia’s water usage has caused a reduction in the flow of the Apalachicola River that has harmed the region’s oyster population damaging the regional economy. Moreover, Florida suggests that it is the Court’s duty to intervene and apportion the water rights equally between the two states. Georgia disputes that it harmed the oyster population and organizations supporting it argue that upstream states have no duty to maintain or protect water flows to benefit downstream states. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Texas filed a complaint against New Mexico and Colorado, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution and Title 28, Section 1251(a) of the United States Code, alleging that New Mexico violated the terms of the Rio Grande Compact to which all three states are party. The United States subsequently moved to intervene in the proceedings citing both claims under the Rio Grande Compact and federal reclamation law. In the Special Master’s First Interim Report, he suggested that the Court deny New Mexico’s motion to dismiss Texas’s claim, but grant its motion to dismiss the United States’ Complaint in Intervention to the extent that it states a claim under the Rio Grande Compact. The United States argues that the Court must allow it to assert all of its claims against New Mexico because it has a federal interest in the matter. New Mexico and Colorado assert that allowing the United States to proceed with its claims risks re-litigating claims that are already pending at the state level, which they believe is the proper forum for the adjudication of water rights. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will affect the scope with which the United States can proceed as a party in this action.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Under 29 U.S.C. §153(b), the “[National Labor Relations] Board is authorized to delegate to any group of three or more members any or all of the powers which it may itself exercise. . . . A vacancy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining members to exercise all of the powers of the Board, and three members of the Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board, except that two members shall constitute a quorum of any group designated pursuant to [delegation].” New Process Steel argues that the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) is prohibited by statute from deciding issues when it acts with only two sitting members on a five-member Board. The NLRB contends that it has the authority to issue decisions, even with only two current members on a five-member Board. The NLRB claims that its previous delegation of authority to a three-member Board allows the Board to continue operating with a two-member quorum. This case will decide how to interpret the 29 U.S.C. §153(b), and whether the current two-member quorum meets the minimum statutory requirement. This case will also affect how the Board handles pending or future cases when there are vacancies on the Board.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources