Justices Hear Oral Arguments in Four Cases
The Supreme Court’s January sitting started off with the late addition of two cases challenging vaccine mandates imposed by the Biden Administration. The first, Biden v. Missouri, involves a federal rule requiring all health care workers at facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they are eligible for a medical or religious exemption. The second, National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration involves OSHA’s vaccine-or-testing regime for all businesses with 100 or more employees.
The central issue before the Court in both cases is whether the vaccine mandates should be allowed to move forward while the legal challenges work their way through the lower courts. During oral arguments held on January 7, two of the lawyers were forced to participate by phone due to testing positive for COVID-19. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a diabetic, also elected to participate remotely.
With regard to the OSHA mandate, several justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, questioned whether the vaccine-or-test rule exceeded the agency’s authority. Overall, the justices appeared more receptive to the healthcare worker vaccine mandate.
This past week, the Court heard oral arguments in four cases. Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court:
Gallardo v. Marstiller: The case involves how to interpret the federal Medicaid Act. The justices have agreed to decide the following question: “Whether the federal Medicaid Act provides for a state Medicaid program to recover reimbursement for Medicaid’s payment of a beneficiary’s past medical expenses by taking funds from the portion of the beneficiary’s tort recovery that compensates for future medical expenses.”
Garland v. Gonzalez: The latest immigration case before the justices involves when individuals subject to removal are entitled to an individualized bond hearing. The Court will specifically address the following issues: “(1) Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community; and (2) whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), the courts below had jurisdiction to grant classwide injunctive relief.”
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez: The Court’s second immigration of the week also involves when bond hearings are required. The Court will decide: “Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community.”Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue: The case centers on Section 6330(d)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code, which establishes a 30-day time limit to file a petition for review in the Tax Court of a notice of determination from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The justices will answer the following question: “Whether the 30-day time limit to file a petition for review in the Tax Court of a notice of determination from the commissioner of internal revenue in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule subject to equitable tolling.”
Supreme Court Strikes Down Campaign Financing Law as Unconstitutionalby DONALD SCARINCI on June 9, 2022
In Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. ____ (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court...
SCOTUS Wraps Up Oral Arguments for the Termby DONALD SCARINCI on May 17, 2022
The U.S. Supreme Court has concluded its oral arguments for the October 2021 Term. The justices hea...
SCOTUS Rules Censure of Elected Board Member Didn’t Violate First Amendmentby DONALD SCARINCI on May 10, 2022
In Houston Community College System v. Wilson, 595 U.S. ____ (2022), the U.S. Supreme Court held th...
- Establishment ClauseFree Exercise Clause
- Freedom of Speech
- Freedoms of Press
- Freedom of Assembly, and Petitition
- The Right to Bear Arms
- Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
- Due Process
- Eminent Domain
- Rights of Criminal Defendants
Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.