Oct 17, 2024 Story by: Editor
The Supreme Court’s latest order list, released Monday, addressed only a single one of the 15 previously relisted cases, denying review in Davis v. Colorado, a case that questioned if the Sixth Amendment ensures that indigent defendants retain the same appointed counsel throughout their case. The remaining cases are set to be reconsidered in Friday’s conference, which also adds six new relisted cases.
Among these is Building and Realty Institute of Westchester and Putnam Counties, Inc. v. New York, focusing on an issue similar to G-Max Management, Inc. v. New York, both exploring if New York’s rent stabilization laws equate to an uncompensated taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.
With election season in full swing, the court’s attention includes politically charged cases. In 2020, Alaska voters passed “Ballot Measure 2,” which introduced new requirements for campaign contributions and political advertising disclosures. Notably, anyone contributing $2,000 or more annually to a group likely to make independent expenditures must file a report within 24 hours, facing fines for non-compliance. In Smith v. Stillie, challengers dispute these measures, with the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska and subsequently the Ninth Circuit upholding the law, though Judge Danielle Forrest noted concerns over the duplicative disclosure provision.
The docket also includes two cases from Louisiana, Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, challenging the state’s redistricting efforts. Louisiana’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan faced multiple setbacks under the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2, as it was ruled that the design of at least one district improperly emphasized race. The Supreme Court granted a temporary stay on the redistricting map change under the Purcell principle, which discourages altering election procedures close to an election. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson opposed the stay, stating that “Purcell has no role to play here” due to minimal potential voter confusion with the updated map.
The Louisiana case is classified as a mandatory appeal, necessitating a ruling, rather than allowing discretionary review. In their appeal, state officials argue the district court wrongly prioritized race and dismissed legislative good faith in its decision.
In other notable cases, Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency and Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency challenge EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act’s Section 209(b). Typically, states cannot set their own vehicle emissions standards, but the EPA has periodically granted California an exemption due to its historic regulation of emissions predating federal laws. The EPA’s waiver authority allows California to impose stricter standards, aimed more recently at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Following several shifts in policy, fuel producers argue the EPA’s waiver for California’s zero-emission-vehicle mandate oversteps federal boundaries, and the D.C. Circuit dismissed the case, citing lack of standing for the plaintiffs. Ohio and 16 other states argue that granting California unique exemption rights under federal preemption contradicts the Constitution’s principle of equal treatment among states. Source: Scotus Blog
