As we saw in Part One, COVID-19 has caused a rather unique set-up for the first two argument sessions of the upcoming term.  October are the cases that would have been argued last term but for COVID-19 requiring the postponement of arguments.  As such, as the more politically significant cases were heard in May, October features very few “political” cases.   On the other hand, highlighted by the on-going attempt of the Republicans to use the courts to undo the Affordable Care Act, November has several very significant cases.

There are two big cases on December’s docket.  First, there is the on-going disputes related to President Trump’s legal troubles.  In particular, Trump’s taxpayer-funded law firm (the Department of Justice) is trying to block the House Judiciary Committee from obtaining grand jury transcripts from the Mueller investigation that might be demonstrate that Trump committed impeachable offenses.  The technical issue is whether the House Judiciary Committee when doing a preliminary investigation into impeachment fits within the limited group authorized by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to access grand jury testimony.

Second, there is a case-involving the Federal Housing Finance Agency (one of the agencies created after the Bush financial market crash of 2008) and whether it is legally-structured.  We saw a similar case this past term involving the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.  So, even if the Republicans do not manage to get another conservative judicial activist onto the Court before this argument, the odds of a ruling upholding the validity of the restrictions on removal are slim and none. Continue Reading...