Ivanka Trump, Subpoenas and a Border Dispute at SCOTUS

Ivanka Trump

Us Weekly’s celebrity gossip coverage doesn’t usually include the U.S. Supreme Court.

That changed this week, when Ivanka Trump attended the oral argument in No. 16-32, Kindred Nursing Ctrs. LP v. Clark.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy invited the president’s daughter to stop by SCOTUS after meeting her on Inauguration Day, CNN reported. The fashion mogul brought her daughter Arabella “to teach her about the judicial system in our country firsthand,” according to Trump’s Instagram.

Besides that civics lesson, what can we learn from the Clark argument? Well, it revealed that a Kentucky Supreme Court ruling that voided nursing home arbitration agreements, “if upheld, could have much broader application to limit the use of powers of attorney in the state generally,” according to Bloomberg BNA health-care reporter Matthew Loughran.

In Clark, nursing homes are arguing that “the Federal Arbitration Act and a stated federal policy in favor of arbitration preempt the state court’s general rule requiring a power of attorney to explicitly include the authority to enter into arbitration agreements,” Matthew says.

You can read Matthew’s take on the argument here.

It can’t be said that Trump “pulled strings to get into a highly charged and popular argument,” the Washington Post noted [they said it, not me].

Speaking of Trumps, another oral argument involved an issue important to the president—the Mexican border—in No. 15-118, Hernández v. Mesa.

The court is “considering whether the Fourth Amendment’s protections against illegal seizures apply to a Mexican teen who was fatally shot in a cross-border shooting by a U.S. border patrol agent,” according to Bloomberg BNA Supreme Court Reporter Kimberly Robinson.

“The U.S. Supreme Court struggled with where to draw the line on the U.S. Constitution’s protections,” Kimberly explains.

An attorney for the federal government said the “answer is obvious”—that “line is the U.S. border,” Kimberly says.

But Justice Stephen G. Breyer said “at least one previous Supreme Court case suggests the reach could be broader,” Kimberly notes.

You can learn more about that argument here.

A third oral argument involved a sex bias investigation and an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subpoena, No. 15-1248, McLane Co. v. EEOC.

Here, an employer challenged an “EEOC subpoena seeking employees’ personal contact information,” Bloomberg BNA employment and labor law reporter Kevin McGowan says.

The “justices didn’t tip their hand on how they might decide” the case, but attorneys for employers were encouraged by the “tone and content” of the discussion, according to Kevin.

Read Kevin’s coverage of the argument here.

That’s all for this week. Maybe we’ll see the TMZ bus the next time a celebrity drops by SCOTUS!

 Keep up with the latest Supreme Court news with a free trial to United States Law Week.