Overview

The Supreme Court Round-Up previews upcoming cases, summarizes opinions, and tracks the actions of the Office of the Solicitor General. Each entry contains a description of the case, as well as a substantive analysis of the Court's actions.

October Term 2020

Cases Scheduled for Argument

  1. Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309 (3d Cir., 922 F.3d 166; cert. granted Dec. 6, 2019, with Question 3 directed by the Court; argued Oct. 5, 2020). The Questions Presented are: (1) Whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a "bare majority" on the State's three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the "other major political party." (2) Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring that no more than a "bare majority" of three of the state courts may be made up of judges affiliated with any one political party is not severable from a provision that judges who are not members of the majority party on those courts must be members of the other "major political party," when the former requirement existed for more than fifty years without the latter, and the former requirement, without the latter, continues to govern appointments to two other courts. (3) Whether respondent has demonstrated Article III standing.
  2. Texas v. New Mexico, No. 22O65 (Original Jurisdiction; CVSG June 3, 2019; motion for review opposed Dec. 9, 2019; motion for review set for oral argument in due course Jan. 27, 2020; argued Oct. 5, 2020). The Questions Presented are: (1) Whether the River Master clearly erred in retroactively amending the River Master Manual and his final accounting for 2015 without Texas's consent and contrary to this Court's decree that governs modification of the manual and the period for review of the River Master's final determinations. (2) Whether the River Master clearly erred by charging Texas for evaporative losses without authority under the Pecos River Compact.
  3. Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass'n, No. 18-540 (8th Cir., 891 F.3d 1109; CVSG Apr. 15, 2019; cert. supported Dec. 4, 2019; cert. granted Jan. 10, 2020; argument scheduled Oct. 6, 2020). Whether Arkansas's statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers' drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of States, is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").
  4. FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71 (2d Cir., 894 F.3d 449; cert. granted Nov. 22, 2019; argument scheduled Oct. 6, 2020). Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.
  5. Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., No. 18-956 (Fed. Cir., 886 F.3d 1179 & 750 F.3d 1339; CVSG Apr. 29, 2019; cert. opposed Sept. 27, 2019; cert. granted Nov. 15, 2019; argument scheduled Oct. 7, 2020). The Questions Presented are: (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface. (2) Whether petitioner's use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
  6. Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, No. 19-368 (Mont., 443 P.3d 407; cert. granted Jan. 17, 2020, consolidated with Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, No. 19-369 (Minn., 931 N.W.2d 744); argument scheduled Oct. 7, 2020). Whether the "arise out of or relate to" requirement is met when none of the defendant's forum contacts caused the plaintiff's claims, such that the plaintiff's claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.
  7. United States v. Briggs, No. 19-108 (C.A.A.F., 78 M.J. 289; cert. granted Nov. 15, 2019, consolidated with United States v. Collins, No. 19-184 (C.A.A.F., 78 M.J. 415 & 79 M.J. 150); argument scheduled Oct. 13, 2020). Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding— contrary to its own longstanding precedent—that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
  8. City of Chicago v. Fulton, No. 19-357 (7th Cir., 926 F.3d 916; cert. granted Dec. 18, 2019; argument scheduled Oct. 13, 2020). Whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. § 362, to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
  9. Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292 (10th Cir., 769 F. App'x 654; cert. granted Dec. 18, 2019; argument scheduled Oct. 14, 2020). Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a "seizure."

To read the full article click here

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.