Relist Watch – SCOTUSblog

Relist Watch – SCOTUSblog


Posted Tue, October 29th, 2019 three:00 pm by John Elwood

John Elwood opinions Monday’s relists, after a trend.
The work crunch continues at my day job, so one other, uh, … succinct installment at this time. Two noteworthy modifications this week.
First, on the abortion entrance, the Indiana ultrasound case, Field v. Deliberate Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 18-1019, is now not being relisted and it seems the courtroom is holding it for the Louisiana admitting-privileges case, June Medical Companies LLC v. Gee. Second, we’ve got one new relist: Liu v. Securities and Alternate Fee, 18-1501. The SEC sued petitioners Charles Liu and Lisa Wang for securities violations. The district courtroom ordered disgorgement of their earnings as a type of injunctive aid based mostly on circuit precedent, though that call predated Kokesh v. SEC, by which the Supreme Courtroom held that disgorgement is a penalty. Liu and Wang argue that Congress “has not approved disgorgement as a type of aid” in civil actions. Uncle Sam counters that disgorgement comes inside the SEC’s energy to “enjoin” statutory violations and was additionally approved by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; and in any occasion, the federal government argues, Liu and Wang didn’t protect their present argument under.

That’s all for this week. We’ll be again subsequent week with extra.
New Relists
Liu v. Securities and Alternate Fee, 18-1501Challenge: Whether or not the Securities and Alternate Fee might search and procure disgorgement from a courtroom as “equitable aid” for a securities regulation violation though the Supreme Courtroom has decided that such disgorgement is a penalty.(relisted after the October 18 convention)
Returning Relists
Gundy v. United States, 17-6086Challenge: Whether or not the Intercourse Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Legal professional Basic in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (previously 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.(relisted after the October 1, October 11 and October 18 conferences)
Paul v. United States, 17-8830Challenge: Whether or not the Intercourse Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Legal professional Basic in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (previously 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.(relisted after the September 24, 2018, June 27, 2019, and October 18, 2019, conferences)
Caldwell v. United States, 18-6852Challenge: Whether or not the Intercourse Offender Registration and Notification Act’s delegation to the Legal professional Basic in 34 U.S.C. § 20913(d) (previously 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d)) violates the constitutional nondelegation doctrine.(relisted after the February 15, June 27 and October 18 conferences)
Terry v. Oklahoma, 18-8801Challenge: Whether or not the boundaries established within the Treaty of February 23, 1867, for the eight tribes inside the former Indian Territory of northeastern Oklahoma represent an “Indian reservation” at this time underneath 18 U.S.C § 1151(a).(relisted after the October 1, October 11 and October 18 conferences)
Isom v. Arkansas, 18-9517Challenge: Whether or not Sam Pope and Kenneth Isom’s important adversarial historical past created an unconstitutional danger of bias underneath the due course of clause when Pope later sat because the trial decide in Isom’s unrelated coram nobis listening to.(relisted after the October 1, October 11 and October 18 conferences)
McGirt v. Oklahoma, 18-9526Challenge: Whether or not the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes dedicated inside the historic Creek boundaries is topic to unique federal jurisdiction.(relisted after the October 1, October 11 and October 18 conferences)
Peithman v. United States, 19-16[Disclosure: Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to an amicus in this case.]Challenge: Whether or not 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) authorizes forfeiture imposed collectively and severally amongst co-conspirators, because the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the sixth and eighth Circuits have held, or whether or not such joint and several other legal responsibility is foreclosed underneath the reasoning of Honeycutt v. United States, because the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the third Circuit has held.(relisted after the October 11 and October 18 conferences)
Posted in Gundy v. U.S., Liu v. Securities and Alternate Fee, Peithman v. U.S., Terry v. Oklahoma, Isom v. Arkansas, McGirt v. Oklahoma, Paul v. U.S., Caldwell v. U.S., Featured, Circumstances within the Pipeline
Really helpful Quotation:
John Elwood,
Relist Watch,
SCOTUSblog (Oct. 29, 2019, three:00 PM),

Relist Watch



Supply hyperlink



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *