The Supreme Court today released the calendar for the November sitting, which actually begins on Monday, October 30. The calendar is a relatively light one: The justices will hear oral arguments in eight cases over six days, with six of those eight days featuring only one argument each – a departure from the court’s general practice of hearing two arguments on each day of a sitting. The November calendar also lacks the potential-blockbuster cases that are currently slated for argument during the court’s October sitting. The highest-profile case is probably Husted v. Randolph Institute, scheduled for oral argument on November 8. In that case, the justices will consider a challenge to Ohio’s system for removing voters from its voter registration lists. The Randolph Institute, a labor and civil rights group, alleges that the state’s procedures violate the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which bars states from removing someone from the voter registration list for not voting and sets out a process for states to remove voters who have moved away.
The other seven cases set for oral argument in November are:
Ayestas v. Davis – Monday, October 30: The standard for receiving federal funds to assist a death-row inmate in his federal post-conviction proceedings.
Wilson v. Sellers – Monday, October 30: Which state-court rulings should federal habeas courts review in considering an inmate’s case?
U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge – Tuesday, October 31: What standard of review should courts use to determine whether someone is an “insider” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code – de novo or “clearly erroneous”?
Artis v. District of Columbia – Wednesday, November 1: The interpretation of the federal law that allows (but does not require) federal courts to consider state-law claims related to the plaintiff’s federal claims, putting the statute of limitations for the state-law claims on hold while the case is pending in federal court.
Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting – Monday, November 6: Whether the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provision, which bars bankruptcy trustees from unwinding transfers “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution,” applies when the financial institution merely “acts as a conduit” for the transfer.
Leidos v. Indiana Public Retirement System – Monday, November 6: Whether a Securities and Exchange Commission regulation that requires companies to disclose (among other things) “any known trends or any known demands, commitments, events or uncertainties that will result in or that are reasonably likely to result in the registrant’s liquidity increasing or decreasing in any material way” creates a duty to disclose that would allow shareholders to file a lawsuit under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act.
Patchak v. Zinke – Tuesday, November 7: The constitutionality of a federal law that “ratified and confirmed” the federal government’s decision to take the land into trust for a local Indian tribe and ordered courts to “promptly” dismiss any pending lawsuits related to the land.
This post was republished at SCOTUSblog.com.
