QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether a civil service pension received for federal civilian employment as a “military technician (dual status)” is “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the purposes of the Social Security Act’s windfall elimination provision.Date.                Proceedings and Orders Oct 08 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 13, 2020)Oct 08 2020 | Pursuant to Rule 34.6 and Paragraph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, filings in this case should be submitted in paper form only, and should not be submitted through the Court's electronic filing system.Oct 16 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 13, 2020 to December 14, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Oct 19 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 14, 2020.Dec 03 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 14, 2020 to January 13, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Dec 04 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including January 13, 2021.Jan 13 2021 | Brief of respondent Andrew M. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security in opposition filed.Jan 27 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.Jan 27 2021 | Reply of petitioner David Babcock filed. (Distributed)Feb 22 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.Mar 01 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Mar 01 2021 | As Rule 34.6 provides, “If the Court schedules briefing and oral argument in a case that was governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c) or Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 49.1(c), the parties shall submit electronic versions of all prior and subsequent filings with this Court in the case, subject to [applicable] redaction rules.” Subsequent party and amicus filings in the case should now be submitted through the Court’s electronic filing system, with any necessary redactions.Mar 12 2021 | Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Mar 22 2021 | Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 20, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 26, 2021.May 14 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner David Babcock.May 20 2021 | Brief of petitioner David Babcock filed.May 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. filed.Jun 07 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.Jul 13 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, October 13, 2021.Jul 26 2021 | Brief of respondent Kijakazi, Acting Comm'r of SSA filed.Jul 28 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.Jul 28 2021 | Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit has been electronically filed.Aug 02 2021 | Motion of David Babcock for an extension of time not accepted for filing. (August 06, 2021)Aug 03 2021 | CIRCULATEDAug 05 2021 | Application (21A17) to extend the time to file the reply brief on the merits from August 25, 2021 to September 8, 2021, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.Aug 11 2021 | Application (21A17) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file the reply brief on the merits until September 8, 2021.Sep 08 2021 | Reply of petitioner David Babcock filed. (Distributed)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Supreme Court of the United States

20-480 BABCOCK V. KIJAKAZI (2021-OCT-13)

QUESTION PRESENTED1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit erred in concluding that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s capital sentences must be vacated on the ground that the district court, during its 21-day voir dire, did not ask each prospective juror for a specific accounting of the pretrial media coverage that he or she had read, heard or seen about Tsarnaev’s case; and (2) whether the district court committed reversible error at the penalty phase of Tsarnaev’s trial by excluding evidence that Tsarnaev’s older brother was allegedly involved in different crimes two years before the offenses for which Tsarnaev was convicted.Date.                  Proceedings and Orders Oct 06 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 5, 2020)Oct 20 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 5, 2020 to December 7, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Oct 21 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 7, 2020.Nov 05 2020 | Brief amicus curiae of The National Fraternal Order of Police filed.Nov 23 2020 | United States opposition to respondent's 30-day extension request not accepted for filing. (November 23, 2020 - corrected letter to be submitted)Nov 23 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 7, 2020 to January 6, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Nov 23 2020 | Response to motion for an extension of time from petitioner United States filed.Nov 24 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted in part; the time is extended to and including December 17, 2020.Dec 17 2020 | Brief of respondent Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev in opposition filed.Dec 18 2020 | Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 15.5. filed.Dec 23 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.Dec 23 2020 | Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)Jan 11 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.Jan 19 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.Feb 12 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.Feb 22 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.Mar 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.Mar 15 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.Mar 22 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Mar 26 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Apr 15 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 14, 2021. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 20, 2021.Apr 22 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Dzhokhar A. TsarnaevApr 28 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, United StatesMay 05 2021 | Brief amici curiae of James Fetzer, Ph. D., et al. filed.Jun 14 2021 | Joint appendix Volume I and II filed.Jun 14 2021 | Brief of petitioner United States filed.Jun 14 2021 | Motion for leave to file Volume III of the joint appendix under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed by petitioner United States.Jun 14 2021 | Joint appendix Volume III (Redacted) filed. (Docketed 8/2/21).Jun 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.Jun 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed.Jun 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The National Fraternal Order of Police filed.Jul 13 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Wednesday, October 13, 2021.Jul 28 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit.Aug 02 2021 | Motion for leave to file Volume III of the joint appendix under seal with redacted copies for the public record GRANTED.Aug 03 2021 | CIRCULATEDAug 20 2021 | Brief of respondent Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev filed. (Distributed)Aug 25 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Interested Evidence and Sentencing Law Professors filed. ((Distributed)Aug 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc., National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the Rutherford Institute filed. (Distributed)Aug 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Retired Federal Judges and Former Federal Prosecutors filed. (Distributed)Aug 27 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Shirin Bakhshay, Tarika Daftary-Kapur, Yael Danieli, Angela Jones, Margaret Bull Kovera, Steven D. Penrod & Christine L. Ruva filed. (Distributed)Aug 27 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Michael J.Z. Mannheimer filed. (Distributed)Sep 14 2021 | Record received from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit (1 Box - including several CDs and thumb-drives of sealed material). Notation that district court was instructed to transmit its record material to the Clerk.Sep 20 2021 | Reply of petitioner United States filed. (Distributed)Sep 29 2021 | The record received from the U.S.D.C. Dist. of Massachusetts has been electronically filed.Oct 04 2021 | letter clarifying joint appendix arrangement of United States submitted.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

20-443 UNITED STATES V. TSARNAEV (2021-OCT-13)

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the rule that a plaintiff must await favorable termination before bringing a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process requires the plaintiff to show that the criminal proceeding against him has “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit decided in Laskar v. Hurd, or that the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit decided in Lanning v. City of Glens Falls.DateProceedings and Orders (Nov 06 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 14, 2020)Nov 18 2020 | Waiver of right of respondent Police Officer Pagiel Clark, et al. to respond filed.Nov 24 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/11/2020.Dec 03 2020 | Response Requested. (Due January 4, 2021)Dec 24 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 4, 2021 to February 3, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Dec 28 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 3, 2021.Jan 04 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National, State, and Local Civil Rights, Racial Justice, and Criminal Defense Organizations filed.Jan 04 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Prosecutors, Department of Justice Officials, and Judges filed.Feb 03 2021 | Brief of respondents Police Officer Pagiel Clark, et al. in opposition filed.Feb 08 2021 | Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the filing of a reply pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed.Feb 09 2021 | Reply of petitioner Larry Thompson filed. (Distributed)Feb 10 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.Mar 01 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.Mar 08 2021 | Petition GRANTED.Mar 11 2021 | The order granting the petition for a writ of certiorari is amended as follows: The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.Mar 24 2021 | Joint motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Mar 31 2021 | Joint motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 4, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 16, 2021.May 04 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Respondent, Police Officer Pagiel Clark, Shield #28472, et al.Jun 04 2021 | Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)Jun 04 2021 | Brief of petitioner Larry Thompson filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Home School Legal Defense Association filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National, State, and Local Civil Rights, Racial Justice, and Criminal Defense Organizations filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Prosecutors, et al. filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of National Police Accountability Project, et al. filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Law Enforcement Action Partnership filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of APA Watch filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Boston University Center for Antiracist Research filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union, et al. filed.Jun 11 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Federal Courts Scholars filed.Aug 16 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Monday, November 1, 2021.Aug 16 2021 | Brief of respondents Police Officer Pagiel Clark, Shield #28472, et al. filed.Aug 20 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.Aug 23 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of The District Attorneys Association of the State of New York filed.Aug 23 2021 | Brief amici curiae of City of Chicago, et al. filed.Sep 01 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit.Sep 01 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 2nd Circuit has been electronically filed.Sep 08 2021 | ARGUMENT RESCHEDULED FOR Tuesday, October 12, 2021.Sep 15 2021 | The record from the U.S.D.C. Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn) has been electronically filed.Sep 15 2021 | Reply of petitioner Larry Thompson filed. (Distributed)Sep 20 2021 | Sealed record material from the U.S.D.C. Eastern District of New York has been electronically filed.Sep 30 2021 | Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED, and the time is allotted as follows: 20 minutes for petitioner, 15 minutes for the Acting Solicitor General, and 30 minutes for respondents.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

20-659 THOMPSON V. CLARK (2021-OCT-12)

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law.DateProceedings and Orders Oct 30 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 7, 2020)Nov 12 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 7, 2020 to February 5, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.Nov 13 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 5, 2021.Dec 07 2020 | Brief amici curiae of The States of Arizona, et al. filed.Feb 05 2021 | Brief of respondents EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al. in opposition filed.Feb 19 2021 | Reply of petitioner Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky filed. (Distributed)Feb 24 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.Mar 22 2021 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/26/2021.Mar 29 2021 | Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.Apr 06 2021 | Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.Apr 27 2021 | Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 14, 2021. The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 13, 2021.Jun 14 2021 | Brief of petitioner Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky filed.Jun 14 2021 | Joint appendix filed.Jun 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Philip E. Berger, President Pro Tempore of the North Carolina Senate, et al. filed.Jun 21 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Arizona, et al. filed.Jun 21 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund filed.Jul 13 2021 | ARGUMENT SET FOR Tuesday, October 12, 2021.Jul 28 2021 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit.Jul 28 2021 | Record received from the U.S.C.A. 6th Circuit has been electronically filed.Aug 03 2021 | CIRCULATEDAug 13 2021 | Brief of respondents EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., et al. filed. (Distributed)Aug 20 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Federal Courts Scholars filed. (Distributed)Sep 13 2021 | Reply of petitioner Daniel Cameron, Attorney General of Kentucky filed. (Distributed)★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

20-601 CAMERON V. EMW WOMEN’S SURGICAL CENTER (2021-OCT-12)

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the court of appeals erred when it rejected the United States’ assertion of the state-secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential harms to the national security, and required discovery to proceed further under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a) against former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contractors on matters concerningalleged clandestine CIA activities.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

20-827 UNITED STATES V. ZUBAYDAH (2021-OCT-06)

QUESTION PRESENTED:A litigant’s argumentation or introduction of evidence at trial is often deemed to “open the door” to the admission of responsive evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence.The question presented is: Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant who opens the door to responsive evidence also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

20-637 HEMPHILL V. NEW YORK (2021-OCT-05)

In Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), the Court held that the test for determining whether a constitutional error was harmless on habeas review is whether the defendant suffered "actual prejudice." Congress later enacted 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1), which prohibits habeas relief on a claim that was adjudicated on the merits by a state court unless the adjudication "resulted in a decision that was contrary to, orinvolved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law." Although the Court has held that the Brecht test "subsumes" § 2254(d)(1)'s requirements, the Court declared in Davis v. Ayala, 576 U.S. 257, 267 (2015), that those requirements are still a "precondition" for relief and that a state-court harmlessness determination under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), still retains "significance" under the Brecht test. The question presented is:May a federal habeas court grant relief based solely on its conclusion that the. Brecht test is satisfied, as the Sixth Circuit held, or must the court also find that the state court's Chapman application was unreasonable under § 2254(d)(1), as the Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held?★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

20-826 BROWN V. DAVENPORT (2021-OCT-05)

The case concerns the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and how predicate offenses are considered and classified under the Armed Career Criminal Act. A predicate offense is a crime that may be or may be considered a component of a larger crime.QUESTION PRESENTED: Did the warrantless entry and search of petitioner's home violate his Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal search and seizure? Did the Sixth Circuit err by expanding the scope of 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(1) in the absence of clear statutory definition with regard to the vague term 'committed on occasions different from one another'?"[1] ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

20-5279 Wooden v. United States (2021-Oct-04)

The case concerns a dispute between the States of Mississippi and Tennessee involving an aquifer's groundwater.QUESTION PRESENTED: "Whether the Court will grant Mississippi leave to file an original action to seek relief from respondents’ use of a pumping operation to take approximately 252 billion gallons of high-quality groundwater; "whether Mississippi has sole sovereign authority over and control of groundwater naturally stored within its borders, including in sandstone within Mississippi’s borders; and "whether Mississippi is entitled to damages, injunctive, and other equitable relief for the Mississippi intrastate groundwater intentionally and forcibly taken by respondents. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

143 ORIG Mississippi v. Tennessee (2021-Oct-04)

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether pre-August 3, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act.DateProceedings and Orders (key to color coding)Sep 28 2020 | Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 4, 2020)Oct 28 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 4, 2020 to December 4, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.Oct 29 2020 | Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 4, 2020.Dec 04 2020 | Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. (Distributed)Dec 07 2020 | Letter waiving the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari pursuant to Rule 15.5. filed.Dec 09 2020 | Reply of petitioner Tarahrick Terry filed. (Distributed)Dec 10 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.Jan 08 2021 | Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED.Jan 28 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Tarahrick Terry.Jan 28 2021 | Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Tarahrick TerryFeb 12 2021 | Brief of petitioner Tarahrick Terry filed.Feb 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.Feb 19 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed.Feb 19 2021 | Brief amici curiae of American Conservative Union & ACU Foundation, et al. filed.Feb 19 2021 | Brief amici curiae of District of Columbia, et al. filed.Feb 19 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Senators Richard J. Durbin, et al. filed.Feb 19 2021 | Brief amici curiae of Retired Federal Judges, Former Federal Prosecutors, et al. filed.Feb 19 2021 | Brief amici curiae of ACLU, et al. filed.Feb 22 2021 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED.Mar 12 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 20, 2021.Mar 15 2021 | Letter of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)Mar 15 2021 | Letter of petitioner Tarahrick Terry filed. (Distributed)Mar 15 2021 | Record requested.Mar 15 2021 | The record from the U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.Mar 17 2021 | The record from the U.S.D.C. Southern Dist. of Florida is electronic and located on Pacer.Mar 19 2021 | The case is removed from the calendar for the March 2021 argument session. Adam K. Mortara, Esquire, of Chicago, Illinois, is invited to brief and argue, as amicus curiae, in support of the judgment below. The case will be rescheduled for argument this Term.Mar 25 2021 | The brief of the Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below, and any other briefs of amicus curiae in support, are to be filed on or before Tuesday, April 13, 2021. Any reply brief is to be filed with the Clerk and served upon opposing counsel on or before 2 p.m., Wednesday, April 28, 2021. The case is set for oral argument on Tuesday, May 4, 2021.Mar 25 2021 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, May 4, 2021.Mar 30 2021 | CIRCULATEDMar 31 2021 | Motion for leave to file a brief out of time filed by respondent.Mar 31 2021 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent in support of reversal.Apr 05 2021 | Motion of respondent for leave to file a brief out of time GRANTED.Apr 05 2021 | Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.Apr 13 2021 | Brief amicus curiae of Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below filed. (Distributed)Apr 27 2021 | Reply of petitioner Tarahrick Terry filed. (Distributed)Apr 28 2021 | Reply of respondent United States filed. (Distributed)May 04 2021 | Argued. For petitioner: Andrew L. Adler, Ft. Lauderdale, Fla. For respondent: Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For Court-appointed amicus curiae in support of the judgment below: Adam K. Mortara, Chicago, Ill.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

20-5904 Terry v. United States (2021-May-04)

QUESTION PRESENTED: (1) Whether the Natural Gas Act delegates to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate-holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent-domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit properly exercised jurisdiction over this case.

19-1039 PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey (2021-April-28)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off campus.

20-255 Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L (2021-April-28)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether a defendant, charged with unlawful reentry into the United States following removal, automatically satisfies the prerequisites to asserting the invalidity of the original removal order as an affirmative defense solely by showing that he was removed for a crime that would not be considered a removable offense under current circuit law, even if he cannot independently demonstrate administrative exhaustion or deprivation of the opportunity for judicial review.

20-437 United States v. Palomar-Santiago (2021-April-27)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether, in order to qualify for a hardship exemption under Section 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) of the Renewable Fuel Standards, a small refinery needs to receive uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011.

20-472 HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC. v. Renewable Fuels Assn (2021-April-27)

QUESTION PRESENTED: (1) Whether a settlement that is not under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B); and (2) whether a settlement that expressly disclaims any liability determination and leaves the settling party exposed to future liability can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).

20-382 Guam v. United States (2021-April-26)

Supreme Court of the United States Cases Seasons will include all arguments that occur from October 01st to September 30th. - Arguments will be posted every weekend. - Please donate if you can. It takes time to post the audio from each case. - An ad will play in the middle of every episode. Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support

hubhopper

Supreme Court of the United States

hubhopper