The Supreme Court has added a second case to its docket for the 2023-24 term, which asks it to overrule its landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The announcement was made on a list of orders released on Friday afternoon from the justices’ private conference earlier in the day.
Both Relentless v. Department of Commerce, the case granted on Friday, and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which was agreed to review in May, will have their oral arguments heard in January. The remaining three cases granted on Friday are likely to be argued later next year.
As noted by John Elwood in his Relist Watch column, the Relentless case centers on the same question as Loper Bright: whether the court should overturn the Chevron doctrine. This doctrine instructs courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute as long as it is reasonable. Both cases arise from a challenge to a federal rule requiring fishing boats to pay for federal monitors.
Unlike Loper Bright, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is not recused from the Relentless case, allowing the full court to consider the Chevron question. The court’s unusual step of fast-tracking the Relentless case suggests it might have other plans for it. Meanwhile, the Loper Bright case was conspicuously absent from the December argument calendar, despite being fully briefed by the time the argument session begins.
In Nieves v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff contends he was arrested in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, he must show that police did not have probable cause to arrest him. However, the court carved out an exception for cases where the plaintiff can show that he was arrested while others who had not engaged in the same kind of protected speech were not.
In Gonzalez v. Trevino, the justices agreed to decide what kinds of evidence will meet the exception outlined in Nieves. The case involves Sylvia Gonzalez, who was elected to the city council in Castle Hill, Texas, after promising to dislodge the supposedly corrupt city manager through a petition. Shortly after her election, Gonzalez was charged with violating a Texas law that bars destroying or tampering with government documents.
Gonzalez contested the charge, arguing that although the police may have had probable cause to arrest her, the charge was brought in retaliation for her decision to exercise her First Amendment right to freedom of speech and petition. She presented evidence that other indictments for violations of the Texas law involved forging government IDs or tampering with financial records.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has made a significant ruling regarding the Nieves exception. The court determined that the evidence presented was insufficient to meet the criteria for the Nieves exception. To qualify, Gonzalez would have needed to provide instances of individuals who mishandled government petitions without facing prosecution under Texas law.
Gonzalez has since appealed to the Supreme Court, which announced on Friday its decision to hear her case.
Alongside this, the justices agreed to decide on two additional cases. John Elwood provided a more detailed coverage of these cases in his Relist Watch column on Wednesday.
The first case, Cantero v. Bank of America, delves into whether federal banking laws override state banking laws that attempt to dictate the conditions under which federally chartered banks can offer mortgage escrow accounts authorized by federal law.
The second case, Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum, addresses the question of which entities are entitled to assert claims in bankruptcy court.
Further orders from Friday’s conference are anticipated on Monday, Oct. 16, at 9:30 a.m.
Cases of interest include: Nieves v. Bartlett, Gonzalez v. Trevino, Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, Loper Bright Enterprises v.
Raimondo, and Cantero v. Bank of America.
Recommended Citation: Eric, ‘Justices grant four new cases, including Chevron companion case’, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 13, 2023, 12:00 AM),
