NG

Listen to this episode on Spotify

Trump's immigration policies are in the Supreme Court once again in the case of Velazquez v. Bondi. The case questions deadlines! The justices had to decide what happens when a deadline for voluntary departure falls on a weekend or a holiday. The Court ruled that if the deadline lands on one of those days, it actually extends to the next business day.

This decision overturned a previous ruling from the Tenth Circuit, which had treated the deadline as a strict calendar day. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and he was joined by Justices Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. On the other side, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett disagreed, with Kavanaugh joining parts of their dissent.

This ruling is important because it clarifies how deadlines are interpreted in immigration cases, ensuring that individuals have a fair chance to respond, especially when those deadlines coincide with weekends or holidays. The Court's decision means that people won't be unfairly penalized for timing that is out of their control.

Summary of the Case

The case of Monsalvo Velázquez v. Bondi arose from the federal government's initiation of removal proceedings against Monsalvo, who sought to suspend these efforts or to leave the United States voluntarily. An immigration judge found him removable but granted him a 60-day period for voluntary departure. After the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) rejected his appeal, it granted him a new 60-day period, which ended on a Saturday. Monsalvo filed a motion to reopen his case on the following Monday, which the BIA rejected as untimely, asserting that the deadline had expired on Saturday. The Tenth Circuit upheld the BIA's decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review of the interpretation of the statutory deadline under 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2).

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Justice Gorsuch, held that the Tenth Circuit erred in interpreting the voluntary departure deadline as strictly referring to calendar days without extending to the next business day when the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday. The Court reasoned that the term "days" in legal contexts often carries a specialized meaning that allows for such extensions. The Court emphasized that Congress enacted §1229c(b)(2) against a backdrop of longstanding administrative practices that recognized this interpretation. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's ruling, allowing for the possibility that Monsalvo's motion to reopen was timely filed.

Separate Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh joined the dissenting opinions of Justices Thomas and Alito, which focused on jurisdictional issues rather than the merits of the case. Justice Barrett also dissented, agreeing with Justice Thomas on jurisdiction but providing a different rationale. She argued that Monsalvo did not challenge any aspect of the final order of removal, thus the Tenth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to hear his case.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Thomas, joined by Justices Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, dissented on the grounds that the Court should have remanded the case to the Tenth Circuit to address a jurisdictional objection raised by the government. He contended that Monsalvo's petition did not seek judicial review of a final order of removal, as he did not contest his removability. Justice Alito's dissent emphasized that the ordinary meaning of "days" should apply, arguing that the statutory deadline was clear and that extending it would create inconsistencies. Justice Barrett's dissent focused on the lack of a challenge to the final order of removal, asserting that the Tenth Circuit lacked jurisdiction regardless of how broadly one interprets the final order.

Scrutinizing "Days" As a Legal Term

The case highlights the complexities of statutory interpretation within immigration law, particularly regarding deadlines. The Court's decision underscores the principle that statutory terms can carry specialized meanings in legal contexts, which may differ from their ordinary usage. The ruling also illustrates the importance of administrative practices and historical context in interpreting legislative provisions. The dissenting opinions raise critical questions about jurisdiction and the scope of judicial review under the Immigration and Nationality Act, emphasizing the need for clarity in how courts interpret "final orders of removal" and the implications of procedural deadlines. The case ultimately reflects the tension between strict statutory interpretation and the need for flexibility in legal proceedings, particularly in immigration contexts where individuals face significant consequences.

Removal of persons camping on public property does not violate our Eighth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's ruling in City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson decides that enforcing laws about camping on public property does not meet the standard of cruel and unusual punishment. This decision overturned a previous ruling frmo the Ninth Circuit that had prevented the city from enforcing its camping laws against homeless individuals when there weren't enough shelter beds available.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by several other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. However, there was a dissenting opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, supported by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

This case highlights the ongoing debate about how cities can manage public spaces and the rights of homeless individuals. It raises questions about the balance between enforcing laws and ensuring that people have access to basic needs like shelter. As communities continue to grapple with these issues, this ruling will likely have a significant impact on how public camping laws are applied across the country.

Summary of the Case

The case of City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson arose from a class action lawsuit filed by homeless individuals against the city of Grants Pass, Oregon. The plaintiffs contended that the city's public-camping ordinances, which prohibited camping on public property, violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This legal challenge was influenced by a prior Ninth Circuit ruling in Martin v. Boise, which held that cities could not enforce such ordinances against homeless individuals when the number of homeless exceeded the available shelter beds. The district court agreed with the plaintiffs, issuing an injunction against the enforcement of the ordinances, which was subsequently affirmed by a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Gorsuch, reversed the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The Court held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is focused on the methods of punishment imposed after a criminal conviction, rather than on the question of whether a government may criminalize specific behaviors. The Court reasoned that the punishments imposed by Grants Pass—such as fines and temporary exclusion from public parks—do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment as they are not designed to inflict terror, pain, or disgrace. The Court distinguished the case from Robinson v. California, asserting that the public-camping ordinances do not criminalize mere status (homelessness) but rather actions (camping) that any individual, regardless of their housing status, could engage in. The Court emphasized that local governments must have the authority to regulate public spaces and that the complexities of homelessness should be addressed through democratic processes rather than judicial mandates.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the Court's conclusion but also criticizing the precedent set by Robinson v. California. He argued that the decision in Robinson was wrongly decided and that the Eighth Amendment should not extend to prohibiting the criminalization of status.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented. The dissent argued that the ordinances effectively criminalize homelessness by punishing individuals for sleeping in public when they have no alternative shelter. Sotomayor contended that this punishment is inherently cruel and unusual, as it penalizes a biological necessity—sleeping—when individuals lack access to shelter. The dissent emphasized the need to balance the rights of homeless individuals with the responsibilities of local governments, asserting that the majority's ruling fails to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

Camping, Homelessness and the Eighth Amendment

The legal nuance in this case revolves around the interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause. The majority opinion clarified that this clause is primarily concerned with the nature of punishments following a criminal conviction, rather than the legitimacy of criminalizing certain behaviors. The Court distinguished between punishing a status (such as homelessness) and punishing actions that any individual might undertake. This distinction is critical, as it underscores the Court's view that local governments retain broad authority to regulate public behavior, including the enforcement of laws against public camping. The dissent, however, highlighted the potential for these laws to disproportionately affect homeless individuals, raising concerns about the moral implications of criminalizing basic survival actions. The case illustrates the ongoing tension between public safety regulations and the rights of marginalized populations, particularly in the context of homelessness.

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

In a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, and its "Good Neighbor Plan" the Supreme Court highlights the delicate balance of environmental regulations and the authority of federal agencies. The Court decided to pause the enforcement of this plan while lower courts review the matter.

The majority of justices, led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, expressed concerns that the EPA might not have provided a clear enough explanation for its actions. Specifically, they questioned how effective the emissions-control measures could be if fewer states were participating than initially intended. This raises important questions about how environmental policies are crafted and the reasoning behind them.

On the other side, Justice Amy Coney Barrett and three other justices disagreed with the majority's decision. This split shows that even among the highest court in the land, there are differing opinions on how to approach environmental regulations and the role of federal agencies.

As this case unfolds, it will be interesting to see how the lower courts interpret the EPA's actions and what this means for future environmental policies.

Summary of the Case

The case of Ohio et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. arose from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to disapprove over 20 State Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to the regulation of ozone pollution under the Clean Air Act. The EPA proposed a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to replace the disapproved SIPs, which was challenged by several states and industry groups. They argued that the EPA's decision to enforce the FIP was arbitrary and capricious, particularly because it was based on the assumption that all states would comply with the emissions-reduction measures, which was not the case due to ongoing litigation regarding the SIPs. The applicants sought a stay of the FIP's enforcement while their appeal was pending.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Gorsuch, granted the applications for a stay of the EPA's FIP. The Court determined that the applicants were likely to succeed on their claim that the EPA's actions were arbitrary or capricious. The Court emphasized that an agency's action is deemed arbitrary if it lacks a reasonable explanation or fails to consider an important aspect of the problem. The Court found that the EPA had not adequately addressed concerns raised during the public comment period regarding the implications of applying the FIP to a reduced number of states. The Court concluded that the severability provision added by the EPA did not sufficiently address the commenters' concerns about the potential shift in cost-effectiveness of emissions-control measures if fewer states were included in the FIP. Thus, the enforcement of the FIP was stayed pending further review.

Separate Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion but also wrote a concurring opinion emphasizing the weighty equities involved in stay requests, particularly when states and industries seek to stay federal regulations.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Barrett, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, dissented. The dissent argued that the majority's reasoning was underdeveloped and unlikely to succeed on the merits. Justice Barrett contended that the EPA had a statutory obligation to ensure compliance with air quality standards and that the SIP disapprovals were valid. The dissent criticized the majority for not fully engaging with the record and for suggesting that the EPA's failure to explain its reasoning constituted a sufficient basis for a stay. Barrett maintained that the FIP's methodology did not depend on the number of states covered and that the EPA's actions were reasonable given the statutory deadlines.

SIPs, FIPs and the EPA

The Clean Air Act establishes a framework for regulating air quality through collaboration between states and the federal government. States are primarily responsible for developing SIPs to meet federal air quality standards, but the EPA can impose a FIP if a state fails to submit an adequate SIP. The "Good Neighbor Provision" requires states to prevent emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment in neighboring states. The Court's decision highlights the importance of reasoned agency action and the need for agencies to adequately address public comments during the rulemaking process. The nuances of the law also reflect the balance of state and federal authority in environmental regulation, particularly in the context of interstate pollution and the complexities of air quality management. The dissent underscores the procedural barriers and the stringent standards for judicial review of agency actions, emphasizing the need for courts to exercise caution in intervening in technical regulatory matters.

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether the bankruptcy code allows for a plan that releases claims against a company that isn't actually filing for bankruptcy, without getting permission from those who are affected.

In a decision led by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the Court ruled that such releases are not allowed under the bankruptcy code. This means that if a company like Purdue Pharma is reorganizing under Chapter 11, it cannot simply wipe away claims against it without the agreement of those who have claims. The Court reversed a previous ruling from the Second Circuit that had permitted these kinds of releases in Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy plan.

This ruling has implications for how bankruptcy cases are handled, especially for companies that may be trying to limit their liability while restructuring. The decision was not unanimous, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh and three other justices dissenting, indicating that there are differing views on how the law should be interpreted in these situations.

As we see, the nuances of the law can lead to significant discussions and differing opinions, highlighting the ongoing debate about the balance between corporate restructuring and the rights of claimants.

Summary of the Case

The case of Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. arose from Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy proceedings, which were initiated in 2019 following extensive litigation related to the opioid crisis. The Sackler family, owners of Purdue, sought to discharge claims against them while proposing to return $4.3 billion to the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court approved a reorganization plan that included a non-consensual release of claims against the Sacklers, which was contested by the U.S. Trustee and various claimants. The district court vacated the bankruptcy court's decision, asserting that the law does not permit such releases without claimant consent. The Second Circuit reversed this decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review to determine whether the bankruptcy code allows for non-consensual releases of claims against non-debtors.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Gorsuch, held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a bankruptcy court to release claims against a non-debtor without the consent of affected claimants. The Court emphasized that the bankruptcy code is designed to facilitate the discharge of debts for debtors who place their assets on the table for creditors. The Sacklers, who had not filed for bankruptcy, sought to benefit from a discharge that the law does not permit. The Court interpreted the relevant provisions of the bankruptcy code, particularly §1123(b), to conclude that while a debtor can discharge its debts, this does not extend to non-debtors without claimant consent. The Court's ruling reversed the Second Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Separate Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. Kavanaugh argued that the Court's decision undermines the authority of bankruptcy courts to provide equitable relief in mass-tort cases. He contended that non-debtor releases are often necessary to facilitate fair settlements and that the bankruptcy court had appropriately exercised its discretion in this case. Kavanaugh criticized the majority for categorically prohibiting non-debtor releases, which he viewed as a critical tool for resolving complex bankruptcy cases.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh's dissent highlighted several key points: 1. He argued that non-debtor releases are essential in mass-tort bankruptcies to prevent a race to the courthouse and ensure equitable distribution of assets. 2. Kavanaugh emphasized that the Sacklers' settlement payment was crucial for the victims and creditors to recover meaningful compensation. 3. He criticized the majority for failing to recognize the historical context and established practice of allowing non-debtor releases in bankruptcy cases.

Bankruptcy and Ejusdem Generis Canon

The law governing bankruptcy, particularly Chapter 11, is complex and designed to balance the interests of debtors and creditors. The Court's interpretation of §1123(b) reflects a strict adherence to the text, emphasizing that the provisions primarily concern the debtor's rights and responsibilities. The majority's reliance on the ejusdem generis canon suggests that the catchall provision in §1123(b)(6) should not extend to non-debtor releases, as such releases do not align with the specific provisions preceding it. Conversely, the dissent argues for a broader interpretation that considers the practical realities of mass-tort bankruptcies, where non-debtor releases can facilitate equitable settlements and prevent collective-action problems. This divergence illustrates the tension between textualism and a more purposive approach to statutory interpretation in bankruptcy law.

Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. v. Fikre centers around Yonas Fikre, who was removed from the No Fly List by the government. The Supreme Court ruled that this action did not make Fikre's claims irrelevant or moot.

The Court emphasized that the government did not provide enough evidence to show that Fikre would not be placed back on the No Fly List in the future. They pointed out that just because he was removed now, it doesn't mean he couldn't be added again based on his past actions. This ruling supports the earlier decision made by the Ninth Circuit Court.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, and he was joined by several other justices, including John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The Court's decision highlights the importance of ensuring that individuals have a way to challenge government actions that could affect their rights, even if those actions change over time.

This case serves as a reminder of the ongoing conversation about government power and individual rights, especially in matters of national security. The ruling was issued on March 19, 2024, and it reinforces the idea that just because a situation changes, it doesn't mean the underlying issues are resolved.

Summary of the Case

The case of Federal Bureau of Investigation et al. v. Fikre arose when Yonas Fikre, a U.S. citizen and Sudanese émigré, alleged that he was unlawfully placed on the No Fly List by the government. Fikre claimed that after traveling to Sudan for business in 2009, he was informed by FBI agents at the U.S. embassy that he could not return to the U.S. due to his placement on the list. He alleged that the FBI pressured him to become an informant against his religious community in exchange for removal from the list, which he refused. Following his detention in the United Arab Emirates, he filed a lawsuit asserting violations of his procedural due process rights and discrimination based on race, national origin, and religion. The government later removed him from the No Fly List but argued that this rendered the case moot. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Gorsuch, affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling, stating that the government's removal of Fikre from the No Fly List did not moot the case. The Court emphasized that a defendant's voluntary cessation of challenged conduct does not automatically moot a case unless the defendant can demonstrate that the conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur. The Court found that the government's assurances about Fikre's future status on the list were insufficient, as they did not address whether he could be relisted based on similar future conduct. The Court reiterated the importance of maintaining jurisdiction and the obligation to resolve cases that present live controversies, particularly in matters involving national security.

Separate Opinions

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, filed a concurring opinion. Alito clarified that the Court's decision does not require the government to disclose classified information to demonstrate mootness. He acknowledged the potential risks of requiring such disclosures, which could undermine national security interests, and suggested that non-classified information might suffice to establish that the challenged conduct is unlikely to recur.

Dissenting Opinions

There were no dissenting opinions in this case; the ruling was unanimous.

Mootness

The case highlights the legal principle of mootness, particularly in the context of voluntary cessation of conduct by a defendant. The Court underscored that the burden lies with the defendant to prove that the challenged conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur, a standard that applies equally to governmental and private entities. This principle is rooted in the Constitution's requirement for federal courts to adjudicate actual cases and controversies, preventing defendants from evading judicial scrutiny through strategic cessation of allegedly unlawful actions. The Court's decision reflects a careful balance between the need for judicial oversight and the government's interests in national security, emphasizing that the mere removal of a plaintiff from a list does not eliminate the potential for future harm or the need for judicial review.

The Supreme Court decided that consumers can take legal action against federal agencies if they violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or FCRA. This important decision means that if a federal agency provides incorrect information to credit reporting agencies, consumers have the right to seek damages.

The opinion was written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, and the ruling was supported by a majority of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas.

Summary of the Case

This case marks a significant step in protecting consumer rights, allowing individuals to hold federal agencies accountable for their actions. The ruling was issued on February 8, 2024, and it clarifies that the government cannot hide behind sovereign immunity when it comes to providing false information that affects consumers' credit.

This decision empowers consumers and reinforces the importance of accurate information in the credit reporting process.

The case of Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz arose from a dispute involving the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Reginald Kirtz, the respondent, secured a loan from the Rural Housing Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Kirtz alleged that the USDA inaccurately reported his loan status to TransUnion, a credit reporting agency, indicating that his account was past due despite his claims of having repaid the loan in full. This misrepresentation adversely affected Kirtz's credit score and his ability to obtain loans at reasonable rates. In response to the USDA's motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, the District Court ruled in favor of the USDA. However, the Third Circuit Court reversed this decision, asserting that the FCRA permits consumers to sue any entity, including government agencies, for violations of the Act.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Gorsuch, affirmed the Third Circuit's ruling. The Court held that the FCRA does indeed allow consumers to sue federal agencies for violations of its provisions. The Court emphasized that the FCRA's language clearly waives sovereign immunity, allowing suits against “any person,” which includes government agencies as defined in the Act. The Court applied a "clear statement" rule regarding sovereign immunity, concluding that Congress had unmistakably expressed its intent to permit such lawsuits through the statutory language. The Court rejected the USDA's arguments that a separate waiver provision was necessary and clarified that the definition of “person” in the FCRA encompasses governmental entities. The ruling underscored the importance of accurate credit reporting and the need for accountability among all entities, including federal agencies.

Separate Opinions

There were no separate opinions or concurrences noted in the case. The ruling was unanimous, indicating that all justices agreed with the majority opinion.

Dissenting Opinions

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous, reflecting a consensus among the justices regarding the interpretation of the FCRA and its application to federal agencies.

Nuance of the Law

The case highlights the complexities surrounding sovereign immunity and statutory interpretation. The FCRA, originally enacted in 1970 and amended in 1996, was designed to ensure the accuracy of credit reporting and to provide consumers with a means of redress against entities that furnish inaccurate information. The Court's analysis focused on the statutory definitions and the explicit language of the FCRA, particularly the term “person,” which includes government agencies.

The Court emphasized that Congress does not need to use specific language to waive sovereign immunity; rather, the intent must be clear from the statutory text as a whole. This ruling clarifies that the FCRA's provisions for consumer lawsuits apply equally to federal agencies, thereby reinforcing the principle that government entities are not above the law when it comes to consumer protection. The decision also illustrates the Court's commitment to interpreting statutes based on their text rather than legislative history, which can often be ambiguous or subject to varying interpretations. This case sets a significant precedent for consumer rights and the accountability of federal agencies under the FCRA.