SCOTUS NEWS
Justices schedule Mexico’s suit against US gun manufacturers
on Nov 22, 2024 at 12:42 pm
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Feb. 26 in a case involving the showing that plaintiffs in “reverse discrimination” cases must make, followed by oral arguments on March 4 in a lawsuit brought by the Mexican government against U.S. gun manufacturers, seeking to hold them liable for gun violence in Mexico.
The court on Friday morning released the calendar for its February argument session, which begins on Feb. 24 and continues through Mar. 5. During that time, the justices will hear eight hours of argument over six days.
Here is a full list of the cases set for argument during the February argument session:
Gutierrez v. Saenz (Feb. 24): Whether a Texas man on death row has a legal right to sue, known as standing, to challenge the state law governing postconviction DNA testing.
Esteras v. United States (Feb. 25): Whether, in considering whether to revoke an individual’s supervised release and impose a prison sentence, a court may consider factors from the law governing sentencing that the supervised release law does not mention.
Perttu v. Richards (Feb. 25): Whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claims.
Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (Feb. 26): Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of a federal employment discrimination claim, a plaintiff in a reverse discrimination case – here, a heterosexual woman alleging that she was the victim of discrimination based on her sexual orientation – must also show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. (consolidated for one hour of oral argument with Devas Multimedia Private Ltd. v. Antrix Corp.) (Mar. 3): Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts can assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
Blom Bank Sal v. Honickman (Mar. 3): Whether the stringent standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), requiring the showing of extraordinary circumstances to justify the reopening of a final judgment, applies to a post-judgment request to vacate a judgment so that an amended complaint can be filed.
Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unios Mexicanos (Mar. 4): Whether a lawsuit by the Mexican government against U.S. gun manufacturers, arguing that they had aided and abetted the illegal sales of guns to traffickers for cartels in Mexico, should go forward.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas (with Interim Storage Partners v. Texas) (Mar. 5): Whether the Hobbs Act, which allows a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to seek review in a federal court of appeals, authorizes nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory power; and whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store nuclear fuel away from the nuclear-reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.
