I'll assign you one of these in class.
Arizona v City and County of San Francisco
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1775
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/arizona-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco-california/
- public charge
- final rule
- non-citizen
Berger v North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-248
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/berger-v-north-carolina-state-conference-of-the-naacp/
- voter ID laws
- state attorney general
- state legislatures
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedures
- - 24(a)(2)
Biden v Missouri
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21A240.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/biden-v-missouri/.
Biden v Texas
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-954.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/biden-v-texas-2/.
- Migrant Protection Protocols (remain in Mexico).
- Administration Procedure Act.
- Department of Homeland Security.
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- - 1225(b)(2)(C)
Carson v Makin
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1088.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/carson-v-makin/.
Austin v Reagan
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1029.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/city-of-austin-texas-v-reagan-national-advertising-of-texas-inc/
Cummings v Premier Rehab
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-219
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/cummings-v-premier-rehab-keller-p-l-l-c/
Denezpi v United States
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-7622
Department of Homeland Security v New York
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-449
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/19-1392
Egbert v Boule
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-147
Federal Bureau of Investigation v Fagaza
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-828.
|____________________________________________________
Federal Election Commission v Ted Cruz for Senate
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-12
|____________________________________________________
Hemphill v New York
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-637
|____________________________________________________
Houston Community College System v Wilson
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-804
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/houston-community-college-system-v-wilson/.
Question: Does the First Amendment restrict the authority of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in response to a member’s speech?
- The Houston Community College (HCC) System
- Board of nine trustees
- each of which is elected by the public to serve a six-year term without remuneration
- David Wilson was elected to the Board as a trustee on November 5, 2013.
- Wilson criticized the other trustees
- alleging that they had violated the Board’s bylaws
- made various other criticisms of the Board.
- the Board censured Wilson
- receiving travel reimbursements.
- Wilson sued HCC
- the censure violated his First Amendment right to free speech.
- The district court ruled against him
- the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed
- the Fifth Circuit concluded that the First Amendment precludes community college boards from censuring members for their speech.
- purely verbal censure
- an actionable First Amendment claim
- “abridging the freedom of speech,”
- includes a prohibition on “retaliatory actions”
- protected speech.
- elected bodies have long exercised the power to censure their members
- Court’s precedents
- affirm that mere censure does not afoul of the First Amendment
- an elected official
- the censure itself was mere speech by other members within the same elected body
- the censure was not a materially adverse action and thus did not give rise to a First Amendment claim.
|____________________________________________________
Kennedy v Bremerton School District
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-418
|____________________________________________________
Lange v. California
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-18.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/lange-v-california/,
- misdemeanors
- search and seizure
- exigent circumstances
|____________________________________________________
LeDure v Union Pacific Railroad Company
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-807
|____________________________________________________
Mississippi v Tennessee
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/143-orig
|____________________________________________________
Nance v Ward
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-439
|____________________________________________________
National Federation of Independent Business v Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21A244
____________________________________________________
New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-843
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-york-state-rifle-pistol-association-inc-v-bruen/.
Question: Does New York's law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment?
- The state of New York
- special need for self-protection
- unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home
- Robert Nash
- Brandon Koch
- “proper cause.”
- district court dismissed their claims
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.
- the Second Amendment
- the Fourteenth Amendment
- ordinary self-defense
- right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.
- deeply rooted in history
- no other constitutional right requires a showing of “special need” to exercise it.
- “sensitive places” restrictions might be appropriate
- Manhattan is not a “sensitive place.”
- Gun restrictions are constitutional only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.
- concurring opinion arguing that the effect of guns on American society is irrelevant to the issue.
- concurring opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined, noting that many state restrictions requiring background checks, firearms training, a check of mental health records, and fingerprinting, are still permissible because they are objective
- dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. Justice Breyer argued that states should be able to pass restrictions in an effort to curb the number of deaths caused by gun violence
- Court’s decision “severely burdens the States’ efforts to do so.”
____________________________________________________
Oklahoma v Castro-Huerta
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-429.
____________________________________________________
Ramirez v Collier
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-5592
____________________________________________________
Shoop v Twyford
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-511
____________________________________________________
Shurtleff v Boston
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1800
____________________________________________________
Siegel v Fitzgerald
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-441
____________________________________________________
Southwest Airlines v Saxon
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-309
____________________________________________________
Thompson v Clark
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-659
____________________________________________________
Torres v Texas Department of Public Safety
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-603
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/torres-v-texas-department-of-public-safety/.
Question: Did Congress properly abrogate state sovereign immunity for claims arising under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)?
Holding: By ratifying the Constitution, the states agreed their sovereignty would yield to the national power to raise and support the Armed Forces; Congress may exercise this power to authorize private damages suits against non-consenting states, as in the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.
- Leroy Torres
- U.S. Army Reserve
- Texas Department of Public Safety
- trooper
- served until his deployment to Iraq in 2007
- honorably discharged
- sought reemployment by DPS
- lung condition he acquired in Iraq
- Torres requested employment with DPS in a position different from the one he held before. - DPS offered Torres only a “temporary duty offer,” which he declined.
- Torres sued DPS in 2017
- alleging that the agency’s failure to offer him a job that would accommodate his disability violated
- the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)
- prohibits adverse employment actions against an employee based on the employee’s military service
- trial court ruled in favor of Torres
- USERRA properly abrogated DPS’s sovereign immunity under Congress’s constitutional war powers
- The appellate court reversed.
- PennEast (PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey)
- Congress could, pursuant to its eminent domain power, authorize lawsuits against nonconsenting States because, upon entering the federal system, the States implicitly agreed that their “eminent domain power would yield to that of the Federal Government.”
- Under PennEast, the test for structural waiver is whether the federal power is “complete in itself, and the States consented to the exercise of that power—in its entirety—in the plan of the Convention.”
- Congress’s power to build and maintain the Armed Forces fits PennEast’s test.
- Thus, in joining together to form a Union, the States agreed to sacrifice their sovereign immunity for the good of the common defense.
Unicolors, Inc v H&M Hennes & Mauritz, LLP
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-915
United States v Taylor
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1459
United States v Texas
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-588
United States v Tsarnaev
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-443
United States v Vaello-Madero
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-303
United States v Washington
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-404
United States v Zubayda
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-827
Vega v Tekoh
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-499
West Virginia v Environmental Protection Agency
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1530
Whole Woman's Health v Jackson
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/21-463
- Scotusblog.
- SB8: Fetal Heartbeat Bill
- civil penalty
- state sovereign immunity
Wooden v United States
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-5279
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v Texas
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-493
