Relist Watch Choose – SCOTUSblog

Relist Watch - SCOTUSblog

Posted on Tuesday December 8th, 2020 at 3:01 PM by John Elwood

John Elwood checks Monday’s relists … barely

Previous predictions of an explosive growth in Relist numbers are coming true, as we have seven new Relists this week. But because I’m too thin to offer much description and analysis, it’s time again for the affordable luxury of Relist Watch SelectTM. This week’s new relists include restrictions on President Donald Trump’s ability to block people on Twitter, the criminal conviction of former New York Congregation spokesman Sheldon Silver, voter ID requirements, fair labor law, and class presumption limits – have broad reliance on security class lawsuits recognized by Basic Inc. against Levinson.

Each case is interesting enough to warrant further discussion, but in my limited time available, I just want to point out that the Trump Twitter case was originally slated for conference shortly before the presidential election, but the court postponed it four times from late October – probably so they can see if the topic continues to matter. We should have more clarity by Monday.

Until next time, stay safe!

New relists

Silver versus USA, 20-60
Problems: Whether a civil servant can be convicted of bribery if there is no evidence of an agreed exchange with the alleged bribe payer based solely on his unspoken, unilateral attitude when receiving a benefit; (2) whether an extortion conviction under the Hobbs Act can be based on a theory of simple bribery; and (3) whether, if the government decides not to argue a harmless mistake, an appeals court can so spontaneously raise a harmless mistake without giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard on the matter.
(resumed after the conference on December 4th)

Kane County, Utah v United States, 20-82
Problems: (1) Whether Rule 24 (a) (2) of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure allows legal intervention if the applicant has no significant, identifiable interest in the action; and (2) whether the United States is adequately defending its title, which is the only disputed interest in an undisclosed title suit.
(resumed after the conference on December 4th)

United States v. Kane County, Utah, 20-96
Problem: Whether the environmental concerns of an advocacy group are considered an “interest”, which is required under Rule 24 (a) (2) of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, so that the organization can legally intervene as a defendant of a party in a pending civil action if there is no legal action The organization could be exonerated in the lawsuit, and its environmental concerns are unrelated to any claims or defenses that the organization itself might bring in the lawsuit.
(resumed after the conference on December 4th)

Schwab v. Fish, 20-109
Problems: (1) Does the Kansas Constitution prohibit applicants from requiring applicants to provide proof of US citizenship when registering to vote? and (2) whether Section 5 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 prohibits Kansas from requiring motor voter applicants to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
(resumed after the conference on December 4th)

Trump v Knight First Amendment Institute, 20-197
Problem: Whether the first change will deprive a government official of their right to control their personal Twitter account by banning third party accounts when they partially use that personal account to announce official promotions and policies.
(resumed after the conference on December 4th)

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, 20-222
Problems: (1) Whether a defendant in a security class action can rebut Basic Inc. v. Levinson’s accepted presumption of class-wide confidence by pointing out the generic nature of the alleged false information to show that the statements did not affect the price of the Security, although this evidence is also relevant to the material element of materiality; and (2) whether a defendant who seeks to rebut the presumption has only a production burden or also the ultimate burden of conviction.
(resumed after the conference on December 4th)

Chipotle Mexican Grill, 20-257
Problem: Whether a district court can consider factors other than the existence of a single material question of law or fact common to a group of workers when assessing whether workers are “similar” for the purposes of the collective bargaining provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(resumed after the conference on December 4th)

Return relists

Shinn v. Kayer, 19-1302
Problem: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated the Deferential Standard of 28 USC § 2254 and used a flawed methodology that the Supreme Court repeatedly condemned when it granted habeas relief based on a de novo finding that a violation of the sixth amendment had occurred.
(Performed again after the conferences of September 29, October 9, October 16, October 30, November 6, November 13, November 20 and December 4; replay requested prior to the October 15 conference and posted on Received October 28)

Posted in Shinn v Kayer, Kane County, Utah v USA, US v Kane County, Utah, Schwab v Fish, Silver v USA, Trump v Knight First Amendment Institute, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v Arkansas Teacher Pension Scheme, Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. vs. Scott, Featured, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended citation:
John Elwood, Relist Watch Select,
SCOTUSblog (December 8, 2020, 3:01 p.m.),


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here