Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court seems to be hitting the ground running in 2019 with their full bench at full strength. As reported on SCOTUSBLOG by Amy Howe, the Justices have an ambitious couple weeks of arguments to start the new year.
During the second week of January, the justices will be hearing five cases, and the following week, six cases. And because the justices only hear cases a few days a week, five out of the six days, during that two-week stretch when they'll be hearing cases, they'll be doing two a day.
Below you can read a little bit about each of the cases that'll be heard next month.
Round (Week) One
Merck v. Albrecht asks whether a plaintiff can sue a drug maker for failure to warn if the FDA refused to allow the drug maker to issue the omitted warning.
Obduskey v. McCarthy asks if the FDCPA applies when lenders properly utilize non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.
Herrera v. Wyoming will test the validity of a nineteenth century treaty with the Crow Tribe of Indians allowing them to hunt on certain "unoccupied lands of the United States."
Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com asks the High Court to clarify when a copyright registration occurs, on delivery of all the paperwork, or on the paperwork's approval.
Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt asks whether the Justices should overturn the existing precedent that allows one state to be sued in another.
Round (Week) Two
Thacker v. Tennessee Valley challenges the Eleventh Circuit's grant of government immunity based upon incorrect application of precedent. In short, it's claimed the lower court applied the wrong test, and the High Court is being asked to sort it out.
Rimini Street v. Oracle asks the Court to be the final arbiter in the circuit split on whether the Copyright Act allows only taxable costs, or also non-taxable costs, to be awarded to the prevailing party.
Home Depot v. Jackson will hopefully decide just when third-party counter-claimants have the right to remove class action matters from state to federal court.
Azar v. Allina seeks the Court's input on whether DHHS needs to put up its rules for a "notice and comment" period before issuing new rules to Medicare administrators.
Knick v. Township of Scott involves a takings issue that was previously heard by 8 of the Justices, and presumably as Howe suggests, Kavanaugh is needed to break a 4-4 tie.
Tennessee Wine and Spirits v. Blair asks the Court to decide whether it is constitutional for states to regulate liquor by only granting sales licenses to individuals and businesses that have resided in a state for a certain period of time.