Justices schedule major cases on deference to federal agencies

SCOTUS NEWS

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in January in a pair of cases asking the justices to overrule a landmark decision on deference to federal administrative agencies. Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo headline the calendar for the January argument session, which the court released on Friday morning.

Relentless and Loper Bright began as challenges to a federal rule that requires the fishing industry to pay for the cost of observers who monitor compliance with fishery management rules. But at the arguments on Jan. 17, the justices will consider a broader question: whether to overrule (or at the very least limit) their 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, in which the court held that when a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of that law as long as it is reasonable. That doctrine, known as the Chevron doctrine, has been the target of criticism by (among others) some Supreme Court justices in recent years, but the Biden administration has told the justices that overruling Chevron would be “convulsive.”

Relentless and Loper Bright will finish off the January argument session. On the first day of the session, Jan. 8, the justices will hear oral argument in a dispute involving a doctrine known as the “voluntary cessation” doctrine – the principle that plaintiffs can continue to litigate their case unless the defendant shows that it cannot simply resume the conduct that prompted the lawsuit after the case is dismissed. The question before the court in FBI v. Fikre is whether an Oregon man can maintain a lawsuit alleging that he was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” even after the government removed him from the list and promised not to put him back on it “based on the currently available information.”

Here’s the full list of cases scheduled for argument in the January argument session:

Campos-Chavez v. Garland (consolidated with Garland v. Singh, Jan. 8) – Whether the federal government provided adequate notice of an immigration proceeding, allowing the immigration court to enter a deportation order when the non-citizen does not appear.

FBI v. Fikre (Jan. 8) – Whether a lawsuit alleging that the plaintiff was wrongly placed on the “No Fly List” can go forward when the government has removed the plaintiff from the list and promised not to put him back on the list “based on the currently available information.”

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Jan. 9) – Property-rights challenge by California landowner to nearly $24,000 in development fees levied by the county as a condition for receiving a permit to build a manufactured home.

U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC (Jan. 9) – In the wake of the court’s 2022 decision holding unconstitutional a federal law imposing higher fees on bankruptcy filers in 48 states, what should the remedy for that constitutional violation be?

Smith v. Arizona (Jan. 10) — Whether the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees a defendant the right to confront the witnesses against him, allows prosecutors to use expert testimony about evidence – here, a report prepared by a different crime lab analyst who no longer worked at the lab and did not testify at trial – that was not itself admitted into evidence, on the grounds that the testifying expert was simply offering his own opinion and that the defendant could have subpoenaed the original analyst.

Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners (Jan. 16) — Whether the failure to make a disclosure required by Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K, which requires a company to disclose known trends or uncertainties that are likely to have a material impact on its financial position, can support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits deception in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, even if there has not been an otherwise-misleading statement.

Devillier v. Texas (Jan. 16) — Whether property owners can seek compensation under the Constitution for “taking” of their property by the state, if the state has not specifically given them a right to sue.

Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (Jan. 17) – Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Jan. 17) – Whether to overrule or limit the court’s 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *