With the death Friday of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the remaining eight members of the U.S. Supreme Court will begin on Oct. 1 to hear oral arguments for cases scheduled through December.
Whether a justice is seated before the presidential election on Nov. 3, before the end of or after the Jan. 20 inauguration, the justices will move forward on hearing the cases they agreed to hear earlier this year.
Here are the cases that are set to be heard and the dates oral arguments from attorneys will be given:
Oct. 5, 2020
- Carney v. Adams - A case in which the court will decide whether a state law that effectively limits state judicial service to members of the Democratic and Republican parties violates the First Amendment.
Oct. 6, 2020
- Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association – A case in which the court will decide whether an Arkansas law regulating drug-reimbursement rates is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).
- FNU Tanzin v. Tanvir -- A case in which the court will decide whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 permits lawsuits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.
Oct. 7, 2020
- Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. -- A case in which the court will decide whether copyright protection extends to a software interface, and whether the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
- Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court -- A case in which the Court will decide whether a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant when none of the defendant’s contacts with that state caused the plaintiff’s claims.
Oct. 13, 2020
- United States v. Briggs – A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. 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.
- City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton – A case in which the court will decide the obligations of an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest. The case involves a reposed car that was impounded by the city of Chicago.
Oct. 14, 2020
- Torres v. Madrid – A case in which the court will decide 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.”
- Pereida v. Barr -- A case in which the court will decide whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Nov. 2, 2020
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club – A case in which the court will determine whether Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act protects draft documents from compelled disclosure if the documents were (1) created during a formal interagency consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and (2) later modified in the consultation process.
- Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board – A case in which the court will decide whether the Railroad Retirement Board’s denial of a request to reopen a prior benefits determination is a “final decision” subject to judicial review.
Nov. 3, 2020
- Jones v. Mississippi – A case in which the court will decide whether, under the Eighth Amendment, a sentencing authority must find that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before it can impose a sentence of life without parole.
- Borden v. United States – A case in which the court will decide whether the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act encompasses crimes with an intent requirement of mere recklessness.
Nov. 4, 2020
- Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – A case in which the court will decide several questions arising under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
- Niz-Chavez v. Barr – A case in which the court will decide what type of notice the government must provide to trigger the “stop-time rule,” which stops noncitizens from accruing the time in the United States that they need to become eligible for discretionary relief from deportation.
- Brownback v. King – A case in which the court will decide whether the judgment bar provision of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) prevents a plaintiff whose FTCA claim against the government failed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction from filing another action, against the same defendants and arising from the same set of facts and injuries, under another theory of liability.
Nov. 10, 2020
- California v. Texas – A case in which the court will decide whether the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate is unconstitutional, and if so, whether it is severable from the rest of the Act.
Nov. 30, 2020
- Van Buren v. United States – A case in which the court will decide whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses that information for an improper purpose.
- Edwards v. Vannoy – A case in which the court will decide whether its decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, in which it held the U.S. Constitution requires states to obtain a unanimous verdict to convict a criminal defendant for a serious offense, applies retroactively to cases on review.
Dec. 1, 2020
- Nestlé USA v. Doe I – A group of Malian citizens filed a lawsuit against companies including Nestle USA and Cargill Inc. claiming they were subjected to child slavery on cocoa farms in Côte d’Ivoire. The court dismissed the case on the grounds that corporations could not be held liable under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). The court will clarify the scope and reach of the Alien Tort Statute.
- CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service – A case in which the court will decide whether the Anti-Injunction Act’s bar on lawsuits for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of taxes also bars challenges to unlawful regulatory mandates that do not tax.
Dec. 2, 2020
- Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary – The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary requested access to grand jury materials referenced in Robert Mueller’s report about his investigation into potential Russian interference in the 2016 election. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed to disclose the secret material, ruling that a potential U.S. Senate impeachment trial is a judicial proceeding that allows secret grand jury materials to be viewed. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court will decide whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding.”
Dec. 7, 2020
- Republic of Hungary v. Simon – Jewish survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust sued the Hungarian government and Hungary’s state-owned railway company seeking damages for property the Hungarian government confiscated during World War II. Under a doctrine called international comity, the 7th Circuit ruled that those who brought the suit in the U.S. should first file suit in Hungarian courts. On appeal, the D.C. Circuit Court said survivors did not have to do that. The court will decide whether a court can decline to exercise jurisdiction on comity grounds in a case arising from the expropriation exemption of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, where the plaintiffs have not sought to exhaust their local remedies in the foreign country.
- Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp – Jewish art dealers sold a collection of medieval art to German authorities in the 1930s and their heirs claimed that the sale was invalid. The heirs filed suit in the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court will decide whether the D.C. court can hear the lawsuit.
Dec. 8, 2020
- Facebook v. Duguid – A case in which the court will decide whether the definition of an “automatic telephone dialing system” in the Telephone and Consumer Protection Act of 1991 encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “use a random or sequential number generator.”
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. – A case in which the court will decide whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration will negate questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
Dec. 9, 2020
- Collins v. Mnuchin – A case in which the court will decide whether the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) structure violates the separation of powers.
Cases not yet set for argument
© 2020 Cox Media Group