A newsletter by Reuters and Westlaw |
|
|
The U.S. Supreme Court in a flurry of rulings issued on an emergency basis this year has let the Trump administration implement contentious policies. This has caused exasperation among some of the judges whose orders have been lifted, with conservative Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch offering them a biting response. Here’s what to know:
|
- The cases at issue have been decided on what is called the "shadow docket." These decisions are issued on an expedited basis outside the usual appeals process with less transparency.
-
Because the court is not explaining its shadow docket rulings, judges lack any meaningful guidance about what to do in future cases. At issue in particular has been the degree to which the shadow docket actions set a nationwide legal precedent. Read more about that here.
-
This has resulted in an extraordinary spat within the federal judiciary. At least five judges handling cases involving legal challenges to Trump policies in recent months have criticized rulings issued on the shadow docket.
- This controversy has brought renewed focus on the shadow docket, which long was a rarely used path for cases but now has become commonplace - and has surged since Trump returned to office in January.
-
Trump's administration has filed 25 emergency applications with the Supreme Court this year, while another petition was filed in a Trump-related case by lawyers for migrants on the verge of deportation. The court has acted in 23 of these cases. It has sided with Trump entirely or in part 20 times.
-
Its most recent shadow docket ruling came on Monday when the court again backed Trump's hardline immigration approach, letting federal agents proceed with raids in Southern California targeting people for deportation based on their race or language.
-
Jan Wolfe and Nate Raymond have more.
|
|
|
-
U.S. District Judge Tim Kelly in D.C. will hold a preliminary injunction hearing in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s plan to deport unaccompanied Guatemalan children. In a rare hearing over the Labor Day holiday weekend, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued a temporary restraining order halting the removal of the children, ages 10-17.
-
Senior U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit brought by the National Retail Federation challenging a New York state law that requires retailers to tell customers when their personal data is being used to set prices, known as surveillance pricing. Read the complaint.
-
The 4th Circuit will hear arguments over whether the district court erred when it dismissed a lawsuit against the U.S. Army seeking the repatriation of the remains of children from the site of the Carlisle Indian Boarding School to the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Read the briefs.
-
The 4th Circuit will also hear arguments in a case involving a U.S. Marine’s adoption of a child who was orphaned on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Last year the district court ruled that Marine Maj. Joshua Mast never should have been granted an adoption of the girl and voided an order he’s relied on to raise her for over three years. Read the decision.
-
The 10th Circuit will hear an appeal from lawyer Amy Pomeroy challenging the requirement that attorneys must be members of the Utah State Bar and pay mandatory fees in order to practice in the state. Pomeroy claims mandatory membership and bar dues infringed her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The lower court dismissed her claims. Read the decision.
|
Court calendars are subject to last-minute docket changes. |
|
|
|
