These U.S. Supreme Court Cases Are Ones We’re Watching

We stay on top of any legal development that might be of interest to the public – and Supreme Court cases where Poston Communications’ clients in professional services might be able to impart some insight. Whether the publication is The Wall Street Journal or Industry Today, we know there is a readership that needs to be served by audiences that range from mass media to niche.

This spring we’re watching several cases that are scheduled to come before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments in the coming weeks or for which the court already has heard arguments and is getting ready to issue opinions. In May and June, the court does not hear arguments but only issues opinions and orders.

Below are cases that we’re paying close attention to this spring, including one scheduled for arguments today:

 

Upcoming Supreme Court Arguments

Sveen v. Melin

• At stake: Whether the application of a revocation-upon-divorce statute to a contract signed before the statute’s enactment violates the contracts clause.
• Argument: March 19
• Issues: Contract law; Marriage

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren

• At stake: Whether a court’s exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcomes the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it.
• Argument: March 21
• Issues: Life sciences; Technology transfer; Intellectual property

Upcoming Supreme Court Opinions to Be Issued

Jennings v. Rodriguez and Sessions v. Dimaya

• At stake: Immigration enforcement.
• Argued: October 2, 2017, and October 3, 2017, respectively.
• Issues: Immigration; Labor / Employment

Gill v. Whitford

• At stake: Wisconsin’s redistricting plan and partisan gerrymandering.
• Argued: October 3, 2017.
• Issues: Political gerrymandering; Elections

Carpenter v. U.S.

• At stake: Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.
• Argued: November 29, 2017.
• Issues: Surveillance; Technology

Christie v. NCAA

• At stake: Whether a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of states in contravention of New York v. United States.
• Argued: December 4, 2017.
• Issues: Sports gambling; 10th Amendment

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

• At stake: Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
• Argued: December 5, 2017.
• Issues: Religious liberty; Free speech; Gay rights

Patchak v. Zinke

• At stake: Whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including this court’s determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution’s separation of powers principles.
• Argued: December 7, 2017.
• Topics: Appellate; Due Process; Native American policy

Florida v. Georgia

• At stake: Whether Florida is entitled to equitable apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and appropriate injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh water into the Apalachicola Region.
• Argued: January 8, 2018.
• Issues: Environment; Georgia / Florida Practices

Byrd v. U.S.

• At stake: Whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter’s permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.
• Argued: January 9.
• Issues: Privacy; Technology; Property rights

Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute

• At stake: Whether 52 U.S.C. § 20507 permits Ohio’s list-maintenance process, which uses a registered voter’s voter inactivity as a reason to send a confirmation notice to that voter under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
• Argued: January 10.
• Issues: Voter registration; Elections

Dahda v. U.S.

• At stake: Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction.
• Argued: February 21.
• Issues: Digital privacy; Technology; White collar crime / law enforcement

Janus v. American Federation  

• At stake: Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
• Argued: February 26.
• Issues: Labor / Employment; Unions

Ohio v. American Express Co.  

• At stake: Whether, under the “rule of reason,” the government’s showing that American Express’ anti-steering provisions stifle price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform suffices to prove anti-competitive effects and thereby shifts to American Express the burden of establishing any pro-competitive benefits from the provisions.
• Argued: February 26.
• Issues: Competition / Antitrust; Financial litigation

U.S. v. Microsoft Corp.

• At stake: Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider’s control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.
• Argued: February 27.
• Issues: Data privacy