Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Three Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court began its January sitting January 11, 2020. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, the justices will last to hear oral arguments remotely for the foreseeable future. Below is a brief summary of the problems before the Court last week:

Pham v. Guzman Chavez: The case involves noncitizens that are susceptible to reinstated elimination orders, which can be issued once a noncitizen has illegally reentered the United States after being eliminated. While these orders are normally are not open to challenge, the migrants could pursue withholding of removal if they have a reasonable fear of persecution or torture in the states designated in their elimination orders. The question issue before the Court is whether the alien put in withholding-only proceedings is subject to the detention procedures set out in 8 U.S.C. 1231, or rather to the detention procedures set out in 8 U.S.C. 1226. Section 1231 authorizes the detention of an alien who”is arranged eliminated ” It provides the authorities”shall” detain the alien through a first 90-day”removal period,” and the authorities”may” detain the alien beyond that initial period when the alien poses a”risk to the area” or is”unlikely to comply with the order of elimination ” Meanwhile, Section 1226(a) authorizes the detention of the alien”pending a decision on whether the alien is to be eliminated from the United States.” In general, the statute expressly authorizes the authorities, in its discretion, to release the alien “bond” or”conditional parole.” The specific issue the justices should determine is”[w]hether that the detention of a person who’s subject to a reinstated removal order and who’s pursuing withholding or deferral of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231, or rather by 8 U.S.C. 1226.”

College officials stopped him because he had been out the 0.0015percent of campus in which”free speech saying” was allowed. When Chike booked a free speech space and tried to evangelize, officials stopped him because someone whined which, under College policy, transformed Chike’s speech to”disorderly behaviour” Facing field if he lasted, Chike registered suit. Another pupil, Petitioner Joseph Bradford, self-censored following hearing officials mistreated Chike. The students raised constitutional claims from the school’s enforcement of those policies, seeking compensation and prospective equitable relief to remedy that the censorship and chill. After the college changed its speech coverages post-filing, the lower courts held that Chike and Joseph didn’t adequately plead compensatory damages, and their nominal-damages claims were moot. Even the Supreme Court must now pick a question which has split the circuit courts of appeal:”When a government’s post-filing change of an undercover policy moots nominal-damages claims that vindicate the government’s previous, completed breach of a plaintiffs constitutional right.”

AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission: The closely-watched case challenges that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) authority to compel monetary relief. The Federal Trade Commission Act generally”empower[s] and lead [s]” that the FTC to prevent persons from having”unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.” The issue before the Court is”Whether §13(b) of the Act, by authorizing”injunction[s],’  also authorizes the Commission to need monetary relief like restitution — and if so, the scope of the constraints or requirements for this relief”

Decisions in the cases are expected prior to the Court’s term ends in June.
The article Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Three Cases appeared first on Constitutional Law Reporter.