United States Supreme Court Full and Fair Review

Justices grant review in 14 new cases simply don't act on hot-button issues

on Jan eight, 2021 at 9:xix pm

The Supreme Court took a large step on Fri dark toward filling upwardly its claim docket for the rest of the 2020-21 term, granting review in 14 new cases for a full of 12 hours of argument. The justices volition weigh in on the Beginning Subpoena rights of students and charitable organizations, also as sentencing reductions for inmates serving time for small amounts of crack cocaine. Perhaps just every bit notably, the justices did not act on several high-profile petitions that they considered at Friday'due south briefing, involving (among other things) abortion, a dispute over the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's extension of the deadline for absentee ballots for the 2020 ballot, and the correct to sue the president under the Constitution's emoluments clause.

In Americans for Prosperity Foundation five. Becerra and Thomas More than Law Center five. Becerra, which the court consolidated for one hour of statement, the justices will hear a pair of challenges to a policy of the California attorney general's office that requires charities to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors. A pair of conservative advocacy groups went to federal courtroom, arguing that the policy violates the First Amendment, merely the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled for the chaser full general's office. The groups then came to the Supreme Court, which asked the federal regime for its views terminal year. The government urged the justices to grant review, which they did on Friday.

With their announcement that they had granted review in Mahanoy Area Schoolhouse District v. B.L., the justices returned to the often-complicated question of student speech rights. Over 50 years ago, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community Schoolhouse Commune, the Supreme Courtroom ruled that although students have Starting time Amendment rights while they are at school, schoolhouse officials can regulate speech that would substantially disrupt the school's piece of work. On Fri the justices agreed to make up one's mind whether their decision in Tinker applies to student speech that occurs off campus. The question comes to the court in the instance of a Pennsylvania student who was removed from her loftier school's inferior varsity cheerleading team when, after declining to brand the varsity team, she posted offensive Snapchat messages. The U.Southward. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled for the student, holding that Tinker does not allow schools to punish off-campus spoken language. The school district asked the Supreme Courtroom to counterbalance in, which information technology agreed to do on Friday.

In Terry v. United states, the justices agreed to weigh in on a technical sentencing issue that has significant implications for thousands of inmates: whether a group of defendants who were sentenced for low-level crack-cocaine offenses before Congress enacted the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 are eligible for resentencing under the Start Pace Act of 2018. The Off-white Sentencing Deed reduced (but did non eliminate) the disparity in sentences for convictions involving scissure and powder cocaine, and the First Stride Act made the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. The specific question that the court agreed to make up one's mind is whether the changes made by the Kickoff Footstep Deed extend to inmates convicted of the most minor scissure-cocaine offenses.

In a "friend of the courtroom" brief urging the justices to grant review in another case presenting the same question, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers explained that the lower courts are divided on this question; every bit a outcome, NACDL wrote, Supreme Court review is necessary "to forestall thousands of predominately Black defendants from being forced to spend years longer in prison house than identically situated defendants" elsewhere in the country "and to ensure that Congress'south goal of alleviating the racial disparities in sentencing acquired by the 1986 law'due south harsh sentencing authorities is realized."

Other grants on Friday are:

• Greer v. United States: Whether, when applying plain-mistake review based on an intervening decision of the Supreme Courtroom, a court of appeals tin look at matters exterior the trial record to determine whether the mistake affected a defendant's substantial rights or afflicted the trial's fairness, integrity or public reputation.
• Sanchez v. Wolf: Whether an immigrant who entered the state without proper authorization but receives "temporary protected status," which allows people from countries suffering from humanitarian crises to live and piece of work temporarily in the U.s., can go a lawful permanent resident.
• Urban center of San Antonio five. Hotels.com: Whether district courts lack the discretion to deny or reduce an award of costs following a successful entreatment.
• Guam v. Usa: Whether Guam or the United States will bear financial responsibility for make clean-up of a hazardous waste site created by the Navy on the island of Guam.
• United States five. Palomar-Santiago: Whether charges that a non-citizen illegally reentered the United States should exist dismissed when the non-citizen'southward removal was based on the misclassification of a prior confidence.
• Minerva Surgical v. Hologic, Inc.: Whether a defendant in a patent infringement activity who assigned the patent may have a defence force of invalidity heard on the claim.
• United States v. Gary: Whether a accused who pleaded guilty to beingness a felon in possession of a firearm is automatically entitled to plain-error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that law-breaking is knowing that he is a felon.
• Hollyfrontier Cheyenne Refining v. Renewable Fuels Association: Whether a pocket-size refinery can authorize for a hardship exemption from the renewable fuel standard program in the Make clean Air Act if it has non received continuous prior extensions of the initial exemption.
• Mnuchin 5. Confederated Tribes & Alaska Native Village Corp. v. Confederated Tribes: Whether Alaska Native corporations are "Indian tribes" eligible to receive federal COVID relief money.

The justices are scheduled to issue more than orders from Friday'due south conference on Mon at nine:30 a.g. The justices could act then on some of the other high-contour petitions that they considered on Fri, including Dobbs v. Jackson Women'southward Health Org., the challenge to a Mississippi police that generally bans abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy; Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley 5. Sisolak, a Nevada church's challenge to the constitutionality of the country'due south COVID stay-at-home orders; Scarnati v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party & Republican Party of Pennsylvania 5. Boockvar, the dispute over the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's extension of the post-in ballot deadline for the November 2020 ballot; and United States v. Tsarnaev, the federal government's petition to review the instance of Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, whose death sentences the 1st Circuit vacated.

The justices also did non act on a petition by President Donald Trump, who has asked them to decide whether Trump violates the First Amendment when he blocks people from his personal Twitter account considering of their views. Right effectually the aforementioned time that the justices issued their orders on Friday, yet, Twitter announced that information technology had permanently suspended Trump from Twitter because of the adventure of "farther incitement of violence." In a statement on Friday dark, Jameel Jaffer, the lead attorney for those blocked past the president, argued that Twitter's decision "effectively moots" Trump'due south petition for review.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.

Cases: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, Thomas More than Law Center v. Bonta, Mahanoy Surface area School Commune v. B.L., Sanchez 5. Mayorkas, Guam five. Usa, U.s.a. v. Palomar-Santiago, Us v. Gary, City of San Antonio, Texas five. Hotels.com, L.P., HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC 5. Renewable Fuels Association, Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Alaska Native Hamlet Corporation Association v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, Minerva Surgical Inc. five. Hologic Inc., Greer 5. Usa, Terry v. U.s.a.

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Justices grant review in 14 new cases but don't human action on hot-button issues, SCOTUSblog (Jan. eight, 2021, 9:19 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/justices-grant-review-in-14-new-cases-but-dont-act-on-hot-button-issues/

parkerpally1965.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/justices-grant-review-in-14-new-cases-but-dont-act-on-hot-button-issues/

Share this post