Clean Water Act and Voting Rights Act cases to headline October oral arguments


With two dozen cases from its 2021-22 term still undecided, the Supreme Court released the first oral hearing schedule for its 2022-23 term on Tuesday. During the oral hearing, which begins Oct. 3, judges will hear oral arguments in major cases involving issues such as voting rights, the Clean Water Act and a challenge to a California welfare law. animals.

The judges will open the oral argument with Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the case of an Idaho couple who were banned from building a home on land they own near Priest Lake, Idaho, because their land contained wetlands labeled as “ navigable waters” regulated by the Clean Water Act. Judges will decide whether the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit used the correct test to determine whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” for purposes of the Clean Water Act.

On October 4, the judges will hear arguments in Merrill v. Milligan (consolidated with Merrill vs. Caster), a challenge to the congressional redistricting plan that Alabama passed after the 2020 census. In January, a federal court ordered the state to draw a new map with two majority black districts, finding that the plan The state’s initial — which contained only one such district — likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in voting. But a divided Supreme Court suspended that order in February, allowing the state to implement its original plan for the 2022 election, and set the consolidated cases for oral argument in the fall.

The judges will hear arguments over just four days in October, instead of the usual six. The court will not meet on October 6, which is Yom Kippur, or October 10, which is Columbus Day. Perhaps due to the shortened oral argument schedule, the court will hold a rare oral argument on the afternoon of October 11, when it has scheduled three cases for argument, rather than the typical two.

Here is the full list of cases scheduled for the October oral session:

  • Sackett v EPA (Oct. 3): Whether the 9th Circuit used the proper test to determine if wetlands are “United States waters” under the Clean Water Act.
  • Delaware v. Pennsylvania (October 3): Whether unclaimed checks issued by MoneyGram Payment Systems should be returned to Delaware, where the company is headquartered, or are instead “money orders” or “similar written instruments” that under law federal, should go to the states where they are purchased.
  • Merrill v. Milligan (October 4): Does Alabama’s 2021 Congressional Redistricting Plan Violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
  • Arellano vs. McDonough (October 4): Whether the one-year filing deadline for veterans to submit disability claims after release can be extended for a “good cause.”
  • Mallory v Norfolk Southern Railway (Oct. 11): Whether the Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction as a condition of doing business in the state.
  • Reed vs. Goertz (October 11): Whether a death row inmate should have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Texas law governing post-conviction DNA testing within two years of the trial court’s denial of his request for DNA test, or if the statute of limitations did not begin to run until all litigation in state courts dismissing the DNA test request has ended.
  • National Pork Producers v. Ross (Oct. 11): A California law that ties the sale of pork to conditions that virtually no existing commercial farm meets violates the “dormant trade” component of the Constitution’s Trade Clause.
  • Andy Warhol Foundation vs. Goldsmith (Oct. 12): What does it mean for a work of art to be “transformative” for purposes of fair use under the Copyright Act?
  • Helix Energy Solutions c. Hewitt (Oct. 12): If a supervisor earning more than $200,000 a year is entitled to retroactive overtime pay, despite a rule that provides an exemption for well-paid executives because he was paid on a daily basis.

This article was originally published in Howe on the Court.


Comments are closed.