Tag Archives: transgender

Supreme Court Preview 2018-19 Term: Part III (Rest of the Term)

In Part I and Part II of this series, I discussed the highlights of the cases set for the October argument session and the November argument session.  Between those two months, the Supreme Court will hear 22 arguments on 23 cases.  As of this point in time, the Supreme Court has accepted 38 cases for argument.  That means that there are fifteen cases already accepted that do not yet have an argument date.  The cases for the December argument session will be announced in the next several weeks.  It is more likely than not that the Supreme Court will fill all the morning slots for that session (twelve cases).  The best bet will be that the Supreme Court will schedule the remaining three cases for the January argument session.  However, sometimes, the Supreme Court has scheduled afternoon argument sessions for December rather than carrying a case over to January.

Besides the existing cases that the Supreme Court will carry over to January, the Supreme Court will begin the process of filling the rest of the 2019 arguments sessions with its initial conference on September 24.   However, there are only a limited number of cases that the Supreme Court has to take.  Even with those cases, the Supreme Court can resolve those cases with a short unsigned (formally per curiam) opinion and does not have to accept full briefing and argument.  Everything else on the docket requires four justices to vote to accept the case.    Which means that the Supreme Court can decline to accept any case — no matter how important — because six justices do not want to address the issue at the present time or because they think that there is something unusual in the current case that interferes with reaching that issue.  Because, in a typical year, the Supreme Court gets over 8,000 petitions from parties that want the Supreme Court to take their case but grants review in less than 80 cases, it is hard to predict which cases will be accepted.   According to certpool.com, Monday’s conference will cover over 1,200 cases.  Even before relists (a decision by the Supreme Court to table a petition to a second conference before making a final decision — which has tended to become more common for cases under serious consideration in recent years), the October 5 conference will cover approximately 250 cases.   Even a site like Scotusblog which tries to list the most interesting of the petitions filed each week misses some grants and lists cases that are denied.  With all of these caveats, I will try to list some of the cases that appear to be in the pipeline that are of interest.

Among the cases already accepted, there are a handful that could have some significant impact.  For example, there is an anti-trust case looking at how to make the traditional rules fit apps for the I-phone.  Typically, Apple would be considered a mere intermediary between the purchaser and the suppliers and, thus, would not be subject to anti-trust claims.  However, Apple plays a unique role in the marketplace and does that unique role require anti-trust protection for both purchasers and suppliers.   Similarly there is a case (involving Merck) about the interaction between FDA labeling requirements and state “failure to warn” claims for the side effects of medications.   The Supreme Court has also accepted a case in which it may reconsider the “dual sovereign” exception to double jeopardy (basically that, if a defendant’s conduct violates the laws of multiple states or a state and the federal government, the defendant could be charged by both governments).  The Supreme Court will also consider whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment applies to the states and how that impacts civil forfeiture cases.  There are also two cases involving the relationship between treaties with two native tribes and state court jurisdiction over criminal matters. Continue Reading...

Posted in Judicial | Also tagged , , , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court Preview 2018-19 Term: Part III (Rest of the Term)

Transgender Rights and the Supreme Court (UPDATED — 3/6/17)

At the end of March, the United States Supreme Court is currently scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Title IX and bathrooms for transgender students.  After this week, it seems likely that the case will be removed from the docket and sent back to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration.   (Updated 3/6/17 — This morning, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the Fourth Circuit for reconsideration.)

As noted in earlier posts, after the adoption of Title IX (barring discrimination on the basis of gender by schools and colleges that receive federal funding which is effectively all public schools and most colleges), the federal government adopted a regulation permitting schools to have separate bathrooms for males and females.  The student filed a case seeking to have the court rule that the student’s gender for the purposes of those regulations was the student’s desired gender not the student’s birth gender.  At an early stage of this case, the Department of Education took the position that it would be interpreting those regulations as requiring schools to allow transgender students to use the bathroom consistent with the desired gender of those students rather than their birth gender.  When it decided the case, the Fourth Circuit deferred to the Department’s interpretation of the regulation and did not independently find what the regulation required.  When the school board appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, two of the three issues raised involved whether the Fourth Circuit should have deferred to the Department’s interpretation of its own regulation.  In taking the case, the U.S.  Supreme Court only accepted one of the two questions about deference (whether deference was appropriate under the circumstances) and also took the question about the proper interpretation of the relevant regulation.

Because the Fourth Circuit decision relied on a judicial doctrine (Auer deference) that dictates that courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, it was dependent on the agency not changing that interpretation.  When the Supreme Court took the case in October, the Department still interpreted the regulation consistent with the student’s position in this case.  After Trump won the election, it was unclear whether the new administration would change its interpretation of the regulation. Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Judicial, LGBT | Also tagged , Comments Off on Transgender Rights and the Supreme Court (UPDATED — 3/6/17)

Supreme Court and Politics

no_more_hate (2)In setting up the federal judiciary, the Framers wanted to separate the judiciary from politics to a certain degree.  By giving judges and justices an unlimited term, judges would be free from having to decide cases on what is currently popular.  Not that the courts would be absolutely immune from politics, but the influence of politics on the courts would be that elections to the “political” branches would be in the choice of new judges and justices to fill vacancies.  The courts would be “conservative” in the sense of reflecting the values of the time at which judges or justices were appointed with a gradual change reflecting changes in those values over time through the appointment of new judges and justices.  (On the Supreme Court, nine of seventeen Chief Justices served more than a decade, and thirteen of seventeen served more than six years.  Of the Associate Justices sixty-eight of one hundred have served more than ten years, and another thirteen have served more than six years.)

The fact that federal judges do not have to stand for election does not mean that judges are not political or aware of politics.  To ask that judges not view close legal issues through a certain political philosophy and that judges not be aware of the potential impact of decisions on elections is asking too much.  However, the Supreme Court wants the public to perceive that they are above politics and would prefer that the Supreme Court rank somewhat low on the list of important issues in any election.  This desire to “lay low” has been reflected in pushing off the arguments on the most controversial cases until after the election (or even later for cases that might currently reflect a 4-4 split).  Even in terms of which cases are being granted for review later this year, the Supreme Court was avoiding cases that were likely to generate headlines.  That changed yesterday when the Supreme Court issued its order reflecting which cases it had just accepted for full review.  While none of the cases on the list are surprises in terms of the Supreme Court granting review, two of the cases are highly controversial — one dealing with transgender rights and the other with sex offenders and the First Amendment — and most expected the Supreme Court to push a decision on reviewing those two cases until after the election, particularly with the election controlling who gets to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading...

Posted in Civil Rights, Elections, Judicial, LGBT, Politics | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Supreme Court and Politics