Louisiana v. Callais

Issues

Did the Louisiana State Legislature violate the Equal Protection Clause by implementing congressional district map proposal SB8? 

This case asks whether the Louisiana State Legislature primarily considered race when drawing congressional district map SB8, and whether SB8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Louisiana asserts that the creation of the second majority-Black district was not motivated by race but was instead a response to a court order. Louisiana maintains that SB8 was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which Louisiana asserts is a compelling interest, and that therefore Louisiana did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Louisiana also argues that Respondent Phillip Callais and other Louisiana residents who joined him in the litigation lack standing because they have not been personally harmed by racial discrimination in redistricting. Callais, on the other hand, argues that SB8 goes beyond what is necessary to comply with the VRA and fails to follow traditional districting principles, as SB8 combines geographically dispersed Black communities into an irregularly shaped district. This case raises significant issues about racial discrimination in redistricting, the responsibilities of elected officials to their constituents, and the relationship between the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of SB8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that SB8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting SB8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“the VRA”) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“the Equal Protection Clause”) both address discrimina

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

Issues

Did Congress violate the nondelegation clause when it authorized the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to regulate revenue for the Universal Service Fund, which exists to subsidize access to telecommunications; and, did the FCC unconstitutionally delegate authority to a private entity in the implementation of the Universal Service Fund?

This case asks the Court to determine if Congress’ delegation of authority to the FCC under 47 U.S.C. § 254 was unconstitutional, and whether the FCC’s delegation to a private entity to implement some § 254 provisions was unconstitutional. The FCC argues that the delegation was not unconstitutional because Congress gave the FCC an “intelligible principle” with which to execute the statute. The FCC further contends that it only used a private entity for advice and maintained ultimate authority when it came to the implementation of the statute. Consumers’ Research argues that the statute only announces vague aspirational policy goals and gives too much legislative power to the FCC. Additionally, Consumers’ Research posits that the private entity’s involvement in the implementation of the statute went beyond advice and amounted to private creation of federal law. This case involves questions regarding the separation of powers and how much leeway agencies have in implementing policy. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Federal Communications Commission to determine, within the limits set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 254, the amount that providers must contribute to the Universal Service Fund; (2) whether the FCC violated the nondelegation doctrine by using the financial projections of the private company appointed as the fund's administrator in computing universal service contribution rates; (3) whether the combination of Congress’s conferral of authority on the FCC and the FCC’s delegation of administrative responsibilities to the administrator violates the nondelegation doctrine; and (4) whether this case is moot in light of the challengers' failure to seek preliminary relief before the 5th Circuit.

It has been a longstanding congressional policy to ensure that all Americans have access to telecommunications services. Consumers’ Research v. FCC at 2. For many years, Congress achieved this policy by allowing AT&T, which once held a regulated monopoly over the telecommunications industry, to charge urban customers high rates.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC

Issues

Does the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have exclusive venue over litigation involving the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program because the Environmental Protection Agency’s determinations are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect?”

This case concerns the proper venue for litigating the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standards. The EPA argues that its actions pursuant to these standards must go to the D.C. Appeals circuit. This is because the EPA contends that its actions were either nationally applicable, since they affect refineries in multiple circuits, or based on a determination of nationwide scope, since they stem from agency determinations about the Renewable Fuel Standard’s scope. Calumet Shreveport Refinery counters that the actions should not exclusively be litigated in the D.C. Circuit but rather in the applicable appeals circuits across the country, since the EPA’s determinations are not nationally applicable, but rather individualized adjudications on the petitions of hundreds of small, local refineries based on particular local circumstances. This case has important implications for the direction of the Supreme Court’s statutory interpretation, as well as shaping the direction of administrative law and the power allotted to executive agencies.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”

The Clean Air Act contains a provision regarding Renewable Fuel Standards ("RFS"), which requires that each year, producers across the energy sector must blend certain volumes of renewable fuel with nonrenewable fuel.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Re Aged Care Award 2010, Fair Work Commission Full Bench (2024)

This proceeding, heard by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission, concerned applications to vary three modern awards to increase the minimum wage rates of aged care sector employees. As part of the determination, the Full Bench found that aged care work, a female-dominated industry, had been historically undervalued because of assumptions based on gender.

Austin Health v. Tsikos, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria (2023)

In the case of Austin Health v. Tsikos, the respondent claimed that she had been directly discriminated against in her employment based on her age and sex. She claimed she had been denied the opportunity to renegotiate her salary which was at the rate specified in the enterprise agreement, despite (among other things) being paid considerably less than a male employee who reported to her, who was classified at a lower grade under the enterprise agreement, but was paid well above the rates specified in the enterprise agreement.

State of Queensland v. Tafao, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Queensland (2021)

The respondent is a transgender woman who was assigned male at birth. During her time in prison at a correctional centre for male prisoners, she asked to be referred to using female pronouns; however, the prison authorities required her and all inmates to identify as male. The Queensland Court of Appeal overturned the Appeal Tribunal to find that there was no direct or indirect discrimination arising from the requirement to identify as male.

Jacomb v. Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical and Services Union, Federal Court of Australia (2004)

In the case of Jacomb v. Australian Municipal Administrative Clerical and Services Union, the applicant, a male union member, sought a court order that a union unlawfully discriminated based on gender by adopting quotas for its executive branch. The quotas required 50% of executive positions to be held by female members. The applicant submitted that the 50% requirement was discriminatory against men who made up more than 50% of members and that the quotas should be proportional to the women's membership within the union.

Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd v. Lau, Trial Division, Supreme Court of Tasmania (2024)

The case, Moorilla Estate Pty Ltd v. Lau, concerned access to an installation at the Museum of Old and New Art ('Mona'). Mona is a well-known private art museum in Tasmania that is open to the public. The artwork, titled 'Ladies Lounge', is a private lounge area enclosed by a curtain and overseen by an attendant, and access is limited to those who identify as ladies. The respondent described the Ladies Lounge as an artwork which is a response to the lived experience of women forbidden from entering certain spaces throughout history.

Vitality Works Australia Pty Ltd v. Yelda (No 2), Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of New South Wales (2021)

The respondent alleged that she had been sexually harassed in her workplace. The complaint related to the display of a poster as part of a work health and safety campaign showing a photograph of the respondent over which the caption had been written 'Feel great - lubricate'. While the respondent had consented to the use of her photo in the poster, she had not been informed about the caption. The NSW Court of Appeal upheld the finding of sexual harassment.

Subscribe to