Relist watch

The “Relisting Surveillance” column will review the petition that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming meeting.A short description about the relisting Here.

I will be the first to admit: Relist Watch has a deep-rooted preference for new things. Week after week, we were almost engrossed in the newly relisted cases, and even if there were any, only intermittently mentioned the fate of the relisted cases.Well, this week, we have no choice but to discuss the “old” list because there are zero There is a new re-listing this week. Yes, there were 157 petitions under consideration at the meeting this Thursday, and only one petition was considered for the second time.

But this does not mean that there has been no response to the re-listing this week. Far away. The judge carried out many spring cleanings this week.The big news is the court Grant review Under close scrutiny Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 19-1392This raises the question of whether all prohibitions on selective breeding and abortion violate the Constitution.The case has been ongoing since September because the court rescheduled it 9 times and relisted it 12 times, making it second only to Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (14 relisted) is the case with the largest number of people to be reviewed.Many cases of re-listing are Usually on the way to refuse reviewI express my only condolences for this, but hold different opinions on this view.The court Also reviewed In the case of relisting twice at once, Badgerow v. Walters, 20-1143, Involving arbitration law, and Shinn v Ramirez, 20-1009, Involving restrictions on the development of evidence in state criminal cases, the federal court is reviewing the petition for habeas corpus.

But this week Order It is the massacre of other series re-listing.The court refused to review in 12 relistings Harris v. Maryland, 20-101, And six relistings Woodd v. United States, 20-6387, Which involves the prohibition of delayed prosecution in criminal cases; relisted three times Allen v. Wells Fargo & Co., 20-866, Involving a lawsuit against the trustee of the pension fund; and relisting twice Ericsson v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Co., Ltd., 20-1130, Several issues involving issue preservation and appeal procedures. Everyone rejected Cert without comment. The Supreme Court’s term of office has more than one month left, and 29 cases are still pending. The judge may have decided not to invest resources in commenting on the decision not to review these cases.

In the absence of new re-posting comments, at the risk of performing the task, I will comment on one of the most noteworthy issues in the court’s recent “re-arrangement” petition. Move it from one scheduled meeting to the next. Many cases were rescheduled for the first time this week, but one of them suddenly appeared to me: National League of Men v. Selective Service System, 20-928. The case raises the question, given that the Ministry of National Defense has lifted the ban on women in combat roles in the armed forces, should the Supreme Court reject the decision? Rostock v. Goldberg, Because women were absolutely prohibited from taking up combat roles at the time, so the bill maintained a conscription registration system that was restricted to men. Supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, a men’s rights organization believes that the federal requirement for men rather than women to participate in selection services violates the equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. It is impossible to say what the decision to reschedule the case means. Overall, the rescheduled case seems to be poorly done, but it is clear that the case attracted the attention of at least one of the justices.

That’s all for this week. Stay safe!

New relist

If you are looking for new relisting information here, you need to keep working and concentrate.

Back to list

Chipotle Mexican Grill v Scott, 20-257
problem: In accordance with the class action provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, when assessing whether employees are “in a similar position,” whether the district court will consider a single major legal issue or factors other than facts shared by the employee group.
(Re-listing after the meetings on December 4, December 11, January 8, January 15 and January 22) [NB: the parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle and the court now appears to be holding the case]

Johnson v Precythe, 20-287
problem: (1) Whether Bucklew v Precythe A clear rule has been established, that is, the state can reject the claim of the eighth amendment method of enforcement by providing reasons for rejecting another enforcement method opposed by the plaintiff, and this formulation is legal in the abstract, regardless of whether the plaintiff is reasonably Claiming that the reasons provided by the state based on the facts of the case are illegal or insufficient; (2) Or, after the Supreme Court made the following ruling, whether the U.S. Court of Appeals agrees that the Eighth Circuit refused to approve Ernest Johnson (Ernest Johnson) buckle Issued in order to amend his complaint and to propose a voucher summary offset of the previously used alternative execution method.
(After the meetings on January 8, January 15, January 22, February 19, February 26, March 5, March 19, April 30, and May 13 Listed)

Lombardo v. St. Louis, Missouri, 20-391
problem: Can a reasonable jury find out whether the officer used excessive force when placing the man in handcuffs and shacuffs face down on the ground and pressing him on his back until he suffocated to death.
(On December 4, December 11, January 8, January 15, January 22, February 19, February 26, March 5, March 19, March 26 Rescheduled before the meeting on April 1, April 1, April 1, and April 23; relisted after the meeting on April 30 and May 13)