We're halfway through February, so it seems like a good time to look ahead to the Supreme Court's oral argument schedule for March.
(Why live in the moment, when you can constantly look to the future? Right?)
Let's jump right into the 10 cases the Court will consider during oral arguments in March.
Monday, March 18:
- Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona -- Does the National Voter Registration Act preempt an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote?
- Bullock v. BankChampaign -- Examining the effect of a bankruptcy trustee's misconduct on the discharge of debt.
Tuesday, March 19:
- Sebelius (HHS) v. Cloer -- Whether a person whose petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is dismissed as untimely may recover from the U.S. an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
- Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett -- Must a maker of a generic drug that allegedly caused harm to a patent take the drug off the market if that is the only way it can obey both federal drug law and state drug product law?
Wednesday, March 20:
- Horne v. Department of Agriculture -- A market stabilization case that could change the future of raisins.
- Dan's City Used Cars v. Pelkey -- One of the classier titles to make it to the Court, this case addresses federal preemption of state laws regarding the disposal of towed vehicles.
Monday, March 25:
- Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter -- Another arbitration dispute, this time about parties' intent.
- Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals -- Examining the legality of pay-for-delay scheme.
Tuesday, March 26:
- Hollingsworth v. Perry -- The California Proposition 8 appeal.
Wednesday, March 27:
- United States v. Windsor -- The Defense of Marriage Act challenge.
While the two same sex marriage cases at the end of the month draw the most media attention, the raisin case and the pay-for-delay case will also be interesting to watch.
The outcome in the raisin marketing case could impact agriculture subsidies. If the Court rules against Big Pharma's pay-for-delay procedure, consumers could see generic version of brand name drugs hit the market a little earlier. While neither case affects civil rights like the gay marriage cases, they do affect major industries in the U.S.