This election season has shocked many Americans. If that included the eight justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, they sure weren’t letting on. It was pretty much business as usual at the high court this week, although Wednesday Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wore the jabot she typically wears when she reads her dissents.
Because you may have been preoccupied with other things, let’s get you caught up with what went on at SCOTUS.
On Monday, the only oral argument the justices heard was an administrative law case that dealt with the president’s power to temporarily fill vacancies with the advice and consent of the Senate, in No. 15-1251, NLRB v. Southwest General, Inc.
Of course, the Supreme Court itself has a vacancy that’s being held up by the Senate’s refusal to advise and consent. That, however, didn’t factor into the argument.
The cases centers on the 1998 Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which Congress passed “to regain the power it had lost when presidents from both parties flouted the previous law’s requirements, including by appointing their desired nominee to a lower position and then allowing them to serve as the ‘acting’ official.”
The issue for the court is whether the FVRA allows a person serving in an acting capacity to continue to serve after being nominated to fill the role permanently.
“The justices seemed to lean in favor of requiring nearly all acting officials to step aside while their permanent nomination is being considered — not just a limited few. All eight of the lower court judges who have looked at the issue have decided it that way, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said,” I reported Monday.
Read more about the argument here.
As Americans were taking to the polls to elect Donald Trump, “the high court grappled with a case that grew out of the subprime mortgage crisis,” in No. 15-1111, Bank of America v. Miami, Bloomberg’s Greg Stohr says.
The consolidated cases look at “the ability of cities to use the Fair Housing Act to sue banks for discriminatory lending practices that contribute to urban blight,” he said.
Here, a lower federal court said that Miami could sue big banks for allegedly targeting “minorities for riskier and costly loans, leading to foreclosures that cost the city property-tax revenues and forced it to spend more on police and fire services.”
Greg says the justices are likely to split closely in this one. Read why here.
The court also heard a case about federal jurisdiction on Election Day, No. 14-1055, Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.
At issue here is whether mortgage-giant Fannie Mae may always sue and be sued in federal, rather than state, courts.
The result in this case could “be huge for the federal judiciary,” as more than “40,000 foreclosure cases involving Fannie Mae currently in state courts could end up in federal court,” Bloomberg BNA’s Nick Datlowe says.
Read how the argument went down here.
Finally, the court rounded out its oral arguments for the week with a post-election day argument in an immigration case, No. 15-1191, Lynch v. Morales-Santana.
The justices seemed likely to find unconstitutional a law that makes it harder for unwed fathers to pass on their U.S. citizenship to their children than unwed mothers.
The only real question seemed to be what is the proper remedy to cure the gender discrimination.
Read more about the argument here.
The Morales-Santana case suggests that the constitutional norms for immigration law are changing. Check out this Cases & Controversies podcast for more on that change.
That’s all from SCOTUS this week. The court will resume oral arguments on Nov. 28.
Until then, stay on top of the latest Supreme Court news with a free trial to United States Law Week.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)