Search

CASE AT A GLANCE Yonas Fikre sued the government for placing him on the No Fly List. During the litigation, the government removed Fikre from the list and said that it would not relist him 'based on currently available information.' The government then moved to dismiss the case as moot, but the Ninth Circuit rejected the motion., Introduction As a general matter, federal courts lack authority to hear cases that become moot, that is, when the underlying legal issue is no longer 'live,' or when 'the parties [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Texas's S.B. 8 prohibits a doctor from performing an abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy, in plain violation of settled Supreme Court precedents. At the same time, the law is designed to foreclose traditional channels of judicial review and effectively prevent federal courts from hearing challenges to it. S.B. 8 does this by authorizing private plaintiffs (and not state officials) to enforce its ban by suing doctors who provide an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy for civil damages. Taken together, S.B. 8's abortion ban and its outsourced enforcement have achieved their objective: abortions have effectively stopped in Texas. And the federal appeals courts, citing procedural hurdles, have so far declined to intervene., Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas Docket Nos. 21-463 and 21-588 Argument Date: November 1, 2021 From: The Fifth Circuit Introduction On its face, S.B. 8 [...]

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act authorizes the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to require certain fishing vessels to carry on board an “observer” to promote conservation of fishery resources and management of a “fishery management plan.” But the Act does not specify who must pay for observers. NMFS adopted a regulation requiring fishing vessels to pay the cost of observers under certain circumstances. Fisheries sued, arguing that the Act did not authorize NMFS to adopt this regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought to remove Situ Wilkinson, a Trinidad and Tobago national who overstayed his tourist visa and resided, without authorization, in the United States. Wilkinson applied for cancellation of removal under a provision of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) that allows the attorney general (or their designee) to cancel removal of a “permanent resident” if, among other things, their removal would “result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a lawfully present family member of the applicant. The agency concluded that Wilkinson failed to meet this standard and denied cancellation. Wilkinson appealed, but the United States Court of Appeals ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Texas Department of Transportation erected a barrier between the opposing lanes of an interstate highway. The state designed the barriers to keep floodwaters on one side of the highway while keeping the other side dry for evacuations during a flood. The barrier caused floods on private land on the flood side of the highway. Landowners sued, seeking just compensation for their damaged land under the Takings Clause. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2016, Congress enacted the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act to address “the most debilitating fiscal emergency” in Puerto Rico’s history. As part of the act, Congress created the Financial Oversight and Management Board (the Board) for Puerto Rico as an entity within the government of Puerto Rico. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, a Puerto Rican nonprofit investigative media organization, sued the Board in federal court to obtain records and communications, pursuant to its right under the Puerto Rico Constitution. The Board argued that it enjoyed sovereign immunity from the suit, however, and that Congress did not abrogate its immunity in the act. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated enforcement actions against Axon Enterprise, Inc., and Michelle Cochran, respectively. Before those agencies issued final decisions, however, Axon and Cochran sued in federal district court to halt the administrative proceedings. Axon and Cochran have both argued that the administrative law judges (ALJs) who presided over their cases enjoyed statutory removal protections that violated the Constitution-in other words, that the ALJs, and therefore the agencies' enforcement actions, were unconstitutional. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In August 2019, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a rule that prohibited noncitizens who received certain public benefits from entering the United States or adjusting their immigration status. Five different federal courts held that the rule was unlawful; and one of them, the Northern District of Illinois, in the Seventh Circuit, issued a final judgment halting the rule nationwide. The Biden Administration then revoked the rule, without notice and comment procedures, and declined to defend it in the courts. Arizona and several other states moved to intervene in the still-pending case, challenging the rule in the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit denied their motion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Mayor and City of Baltimore sued 26 multinational oil and gas companies in Maryland state court for their roles in creating global warming. The companies removed the case to federal court, arguing that the case implicated federal law and federal officers. But the district court disagreed and remanded the case to state court. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling on the defendants’ federal-officer ground for removal. But it ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s remand on the other grounds for removal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2010, 14 Jewish survivors of the Hungarian Holocaust sued Hungary and the Hungarian state-owned railway in U.S. district court. The plaintiffs sought compensation for the property that the defendants stole from them and their families as part of the defendants’ campaign to eradicate Jews. The plaintiffs did not pursue remedies in Hungary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Did the Arizona Supreme Court Violate the Constitution When, After a Federal Court Struck a Convicted Individual's Death Sentence On Habeas Corpus Review, It Reconsidered the Sentence Itself, Instead of Remanding the Case to a Jury or Trial Court for Resentencing? In support of his PTSD claim, McKinney called a psychologist, who testified that he had diagnosed McKinney with "PTSD resulting from the horrific childhood McKinney had suffered." According to McKinney, that's because the Arizona Supreme Court reopened his case for the very purpose of reconsidering his sentence, and sentencing, or in this case resentencing, is a fundamental part of a capital defendant's case. Arizona counters that McKinney's "sweeping" claim that it can only remedy its Eddings violations by resentencing McKinney in a trial court is "unwarranted and would undermine the interests of justice.". [Extracted from the article]

PDR argues first that the Hobbs Act does not require the courts to treat the FCC's Order as authoritative, without regard to the text of the TCPA, as the Fourth Circuit ruled. PDR claims that the Hobbs Act, instead, vests courts of appeals with exclusive jurisdiction only over proceedings for direct review of final FCC orders, in cases against the United States for declaratory or injunctive relief. At most, this case presents an extremely narrow question for the Court: Does the Hobbs Act require the district court in this case to accept the FCC's Order interpreting the TCPA?. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the court case between the state of Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community for allegedly operating an illegal casino on property off the tribe's reservation. The ruling of the lower appellate court stating that the federal courts lacked jurisdiction over some of the state's claims is mentioned. The tribal sovereign immunity enjoyed by the Indian tribes from the lawsuit is also explained.

The article discusses a court case related to greenhouse gas emissions and the separation of powers of the federal courts. In American Electric Power Co. Connecticut, the former accused the latter of contributing to and exacerbating threat to climate change by emitting 650 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. The article explores the role of the case in raising questions about legal standing, the powers of government, and what is political.