Scottus News

On the day the court makes a major ruling University Sports with Securities Law, Order list Last week’s private meeting of justices did not cause a sensation on Monday morning. The court did not add any new cases to the fall file, but it did require the federal government to weigh the state Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal regulations—a move that could put the potential successor of Justice Stephen Breyer into the spotlight.with In a separate order In the news released late on Monday morning, after the Biden administration ended the plan, the judges challenged the Trump-era asylum policy.

The judges called on acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar in Marin Housing Authority v. ReillyThe center of this case is the interpretation of a regulation passed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that defines “income” for the purpose of a federal program (called Section 8) that provides subsidies to help low-income families Pay the rent. In the following decision, the California Supreme Court’s specific question is that the federal government is now required to comment on whether the compensation received by parents for taking care of a severely disabled adult daughter should be included in the “income” for public housing management When the Bureau calculates the Section 8 subsidy. The California Supreme Court, which is very divided, ruled that compensation should be excluded from income. The Chief Justice of the Court, Tani Cantil-Sakauye (Tani Cantil-Sakauye) wrote a dissenting opinion, which was also joined by Justice Leondra Kruger, who is often referred to Mentioned as one of President Joe Biden’s candidates for the Supreme Court.

Separately, in Mayorkas v. Innovation Law Laboratory, The Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the Trump administration’s “stay in Mexico” policy, which allows the Department of Homeland Security to require non-Mexican immigrants seeking asylum at the southern border to stay in Mexico while waiting for a US hearing. Being fired is not unexpected. The court agreed to weigh the policy in October 2020, but in February, the Biden administration had asked the judge to remove the case from the February debate schedule.

in Newsletter submitted in June, Prelogar urged the court to invalidate the lower court’s ruling and send the case back, and instructed the district court to dismiss the 2019 order prohibiting the federal government from implementing the policy. Prelogar argued that the case has no practical significance—that is, it is no longer an on-site dispute—because the Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Majorcas ended his “remain in Mexico” on June 1. policy. In an unsigned order, the judges did just that.The order was also shelved because it had no practical meaning Requests from a group of countriesLed by the State of Texas, joined the lawsuit to defend the policies of the Biden administration.

The judges will hold another private meeting on Thursday, June 24. This will be the last regular meeting of judges before the summer adjournment. The court is expected to issue the order for the meeting on Monday, June 28, and will almost certainly issue an additional set of orders after the last opinion day of the term.

This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.