SCOTUS News

The Supreme Court’s closing arguments for its 2022-23 term will discuss how employers must respond to employees’ religious practices and how threatening speech is protected by the First Amendment. There is a high-profile debate about how courts should determine whether two cases, Groff vs. Dejoy When Counterman vs. Coloradobecomes a heading Argument Calendar for Aprilwas released with March Argument Calendar – on tuesday.

judge agreed earlier this month to pick up Grof When counter man, and several other lawsuits currently scheduled for discussion in April. Gerald Grof, an evangelical Christian and U.S. Postal Service employee, has been reprimanded after refusing to work Sunday delivering packages for Amazon. to overturn his 1977 judgment. Transworld Airlines vs. Hardisonemployers need to overcome a general prohibition against dismissing workers who practice a religion whenever there is more than a trivial or minimal cost to accommodate the religious practice. It can indicate “excessive difficulty”.

In the Billy Ray Counterman case, the judge agreed to decide an issue that had been left unresolved nine years earlier. Eronis vs AmericaThe counterman was found guilty and sentenced to four and a half years in prison after sending a message to a local musician who “very frightened” her. Courts may use objective tests (as they did in Counterman’s case) or, alternatively, subjective The question is whether to use a sensible test.

Here is the full list of cases scheduled for oral argument at the March 2023 Oral Session:

• Arizona vs Navajo Nation & Department of the Interior vs. Navajo Nation (merged into 1-hour oral argument on March 20): Whether the federal government’s failure to claim Navajo water rights from the Colorado River violates its obligations to the tribes.
• Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic International (Changed from March 21 February Argument Schedule): Whether owners of US registered trademarks can sue for infringement damages abroad.
• Coinbase vs Bielski (March 21): Whether a frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration will strip the district court of its jurisdiction and suspend proceedings in the district court.
• Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (March 22): If and when trademark law prohibits impersonating a company’s brand.
• amgen vs sanofi (March 27): If a patent applicant must provide a description of the invention that would enable a “skilled worker” to make and use the invention, what should the applicant do to meet that requirement? do i have to show?
• USA vs. Hansen (March 27): Whether federal law criminalizes encouraging or inducing unauthorized immigrants to enter or reside in the United States, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, is unconstitutional .
• Smith vs. USA (March 28): If an appeals court concludes that one of the counts on which the defendant was convicted was tried in the wrong place, what is the appropriate remedy? acquittal or retrial? ?
• Laura vs. USA (March 28): Whether the Federal Criminal Justice Act would require a New York man convicted of a role in a drug trafficking murder to be sentenced to consecutive, rather than simultaneous, sentences.
• Samia vs America (March 29): Edited not to use the defendant’s name on whether the prosecutor violated the defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment when admitting a confession from one of the co-defendants.
• Porselli vs. IRS (March 29): Normally the IRS must notify the person whose records are being sought by the third party record holder, but a subpoena was issued to help the IRS collect the debt. If the taxpayer has a legal interest in the records being sought, or the IRS believes the records may help collect debts, do the exceptions apply? When does it apply?

Here is the full list of lawsuits scheduled for the April 2023 hearing:

• Pugin vs. Garland & Garland vs Cordero Garcia (April 17th, condensed into one-hour oral arguments): Criminal acts that do not interfere with existing investigations and judicial procedures fall under “offenses of obstructing the execution of public duties” or criminal penalties for foreigners.
• Slack Technologies v. Pirani (April 17): To file a securities action alleging misrepresentation of a registration statement, the plaintiff must present and prove that it purchased shares registered on the basis of the allegedly misleading registration statement. whether you have to
• Groff vs. Dejoy (April 18): Whether to Overturn Supreme Court’s 1977 Decision Transworld Airlines vs. Hardisonfor accommodations that an employer must provide for an employee’s religious practices.
• Foreign Relations.Schütte vs Super Value & Foreign Relations.Proctor vs. Safeway (Integrated into 1-hour Oral Argument on April 18): Defendant’s subjective knowledge of whether his conduct was lawful led him to “knowingly” file a false claim for payment to the government. made or “knowingly” endorsed such claims.
• Counterman vs. Colorado (April 19): To determine whether a statement is a “genuine threat” unprotected by the Constitution, the court considers whether a reasonable person would view the statement as a threat of violence. Either an objective test should be applied, or a subjective test should be applied instead. Do prosecutors have to prove that the speaker intended to make a threat?
• Dupree vs Younger (April 24): Whether the parties must restate purely legal claims dismissed on summary judgment on post-trial motions to maintain the points on appeal.
• Lac du Flambeau Band vs. Coughlin (April 24): Whether the bankruptcy law expressly expresses Congress’ intention to abolish sovereign immunity for Native American tribes.
• Yegiazaryan v. Smagin & CMB Monaco vs Smajin (merged into 1-hour oral argument on April 25): Under what circumstances is it necessary to make a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupted Organizations Act when the only damages are foreign plaintiffs against intangible property? What kind of “domestic” damage was suffered?
• Tyler v. Hennepin County (April 26): Whether the foreclosure and sale of a home worth $25,000 more than the taxes the owner owes violates the Fifth Amendment Acquisition Clause.

This article is First published in Howe on the Court.