Scottrade News

in a Argument Calendar On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear oral arguments in seven cases within five days. The judges will deal with a wide range of issues, from the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gases, to a group of states defending a controversial Trump-era immigration after the Biden administration rejected it. Policy efforts. this way.

The judge will hear oral arguments on February 28 West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, Combined with the other three cases: North American Coal Corp. v. EPA, Westmoreland Mining Holdings v. EPA and North Dakota v. Environmental Protection AgencyThese cases are heard by judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The court reversed the Trump administration’s decision to abolish the 2015 Clean Energy Plan, which established guidelines for states to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, and the Trump Administration’s “Affordable Clean Energy Rule” promulgated in place of it. .Biden Administration Urge the judge Staying out of the dispute and stressing that it intends to issue new rules, but the court Approval review Late October.

At the same time, the judges agreed to decide whether the 13 states led by Arizona can defend the Trump administration’s rules, which expand the definition of “public charge” if the government believes they may rely too much on government assistance.When the two federal appellate courts ruled in favor of groups challenging the rule, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to weigh and the judges Agree to do soBut the Biden administration and the challenger subsequently agreed to dismiss the case, prompting the states to intervene to defend the rules.The judge finally approved the review Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco Decide whether countries interested in the dispute should be allowed to intervene to defend the rules when the United States no longer does so.

The following is a complete list of cases scheduled for debate in February:

Ysleta del sur Pueblo v. Texas (February 22): Does the federal law prohibiting any gambling activities “prohibited by Texas law” on tribal land prohibit any type of gambling prohibited by state law, or does it go one step further and prohibit any gambling country Regulation.

Denezpi v Texas (February 22): Can the prosecution of the Indian crime court trigger the double danger clause of the Constitution?

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco (February 23): When the federal government refuses to do so, should states be allowed to intervene in litigation and defend federal regulations.

West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (February 28): Does the Clean Air Act authorize EPA to issue important rules to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants?

Nguyen v. U.S. (and Kahn v. United States) (March 1): When a doctor has reason to believe that his prescription complies with professional standards, the doctor who has the right to prescribe controlled drugs will be convicted for illegally distributing these drugs.

Marietta Memorial Hospital v DaVita Inc. (March 1): There is a dispute over the interpretation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, which prohibits health plans from considering whether individuals are eligible for Medicare benefits because they suffer from kidney failure and provide different Benefits.

Egbert v. Bull (March 2): Whether the court’s decision Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics AgentsIndividuals are allowed to sue federal agents for infringement of his Fourth Amendment rights, extending to First Amendment retaliation claims and Fourth Amendment claims involving immigration enforcement.

This article is Originally published in Howe on the Court.