SCOTUS NEWS

April argument calendar features cases on Trump-era asylum policy and praying football coach

After a relatively quiet March argument session, the Supreme Court will finish its blockbuster 2021-22 term with a bang. The court on Tuesday released the argument calendar for the term’s final session, in April. The justices will hear argument in 10 cases over six days, including the challenge to the Biden administration’s efforts to unwind the controversial Trump-era program known as the “remain in Mexico” policy. In February, the justices agreed to fast-track that case, Biden v. Texas, so that it could be argued during the April session (on April 26) and decided during the current term.

The justices will also hear argument on April 25 in Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the case of a high school football coach who wanted to pray at midfield after games. When the school district told him to stop praying, and later did not rehire him, the coach filed the lawsuit now before the Supreme Court, arguing that the school district had violated his First Amendment rights and federal civil rights laws.

Here is the full list of the cases scheduled for the April argument session:

United States v. Washington (April 18): A challenge by the federal government to a special Washington state worker’s compensation law for federal contract workers employed at the Hanford site in the state, which produced weapons-grade plutonium for the U.S. nuclear program but also generated large amounts of radioactive waste. The law creates a presumption that workers will be eligible for benefits if they contract certain diseases, including cancer.

Siegel v. Fitzgerald (April 18): Whether a 2017 law that increases fees in some bankruptcy courts but not others violates a provision of the Constitution’s bankruptcy clause that directs Congress to establish “uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”

George v. McDonough (April 19): Whether the denial of a veteran’s claim for benefits that relies on an agency’s interpretation that is later deemed invalid is the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that allows the veteran to challenge an otherwise-final decision.

Kemp v. United States (April 19): Whether a district court can reopen a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), which allows the court to do so because of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” if the original judgment was based on a legal error by the district court.

Vega v. Tekoh (April 20): Whether a plaintiff can bring a federal civil rights claim against a police officer based on the officer’s failure to provide a Miranda warning.

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (April 25): Whether a public school district violated the rights of a high school football coach when it restricted him from praying on the field after games.

Nance v. Ward (April 25): A case involving the procedures by which an inmate must raise his challenge to the method by which the state intends to execute him.

Biden v. Texas (April 26): Whether the Department of Homeland Security must continue to enforce the Migrant Protection Protocols, a policy begun by President Donald Trump that requires asylum seekers at the southern border to stay in Mexico while awaiting a hearing in U.S. immigration court.

Shoop v. Twyford (April 26): A case involving, among other things, whether a court must determine whether evidence would help an inmate seeking a writ of habeas corpus and whether the court can consider that evidence before the court grants an order allowing the inmate to develop new evidence.

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta (April 27): Whether a state has authority to prosecute defendants who are not Native Americans, but who commit crimes against Native Americans on land that Congress historically reserved for Native people.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.