The April docket of oral arguments for the High Court is pretty packed with 12 cases over two weeks. And still no word on whether Justice Ginsburg will attend the hearings or be working from home.
Arguments will kick off on April 15 and conclude on April 24, unless the Justices decide to take up the Trump administration's appeal on the 2020 census issue. However, as Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog notes, even if the Justices do decide to take that case up ahead of the federal appeals court hearing the matter, it could be heard in a special session in May, rather than added to the April calendar.
April 15 to 17
Iancu v. Brunetti will kick off the session with argument over whether the clothing brand FUCT can register their brand name as a trademark, challenging the Lanham Act prohibition of registering "scandalous" trademarks.
Emulex v. Varjabedian asks whether a private party plaintiff has to prove a defendant intended to make a false statement, or whether negligent false statements qualify for actions brought under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kaestner Family Trust seeks to resolve the question of whether it is a due process violation for states to tax a trust with in state beneficiaries.
Parker Drilling v. Newton asks whether California labor laws apply to offshore oil rigs that fall under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
McDonough v. Smith seeks to resolve the question of when a statute of limitations begins to run when a prosecutor fabricates evidence.
U.S. v. Davis challenges a federal law making it a crime to possess a gun when committing a violent crime.
April 22 to 25
Fort Bend v. Davis seeks to resolve the circuit split over whether the federal court can hear Title VII employment discrimination matters that have not gone through the EEOC.
Food Marketing v. Argus explores the meaning of the term confidential as it relates to the Freedom of Information Act.
Mitchell v. Wisconsin challenges the state law allowing cops to take a warrantless blood draw from an unconscious driver.
Rehaif v. U.S. seeks to resolve the seemingly semantic issue of whether the knowledge element of the federal crime of being unlawfully in the country and possessing guns and ammo applies to both the possession and unlawful entry, or just the possession.
Taggart v. Lorenzen challenges whether a creditor who in good faith accidentally pursues a debt discharged by bankruptcy can be found of civil contempt.
Quarles v. U.S. seeks to clarify the circuit split for the purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act, of whether the intent to commit burglary arose before unlawful entry or after unlawful is even a material distinction.