Amy Howe

Jun 29 2020

No new grants today

This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from the justices’ private conference last week. The court did not grant any new cases for oral argument in the fall, but with another conference now scheduled for Wednesday, more grants could come as soon as Thursday morning.

The justices invited the federal government to file briefs in two cases: PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey, about whether the Natural Gas Act authorizes private companies to exercise the federal government’s eminent domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest; and FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, involving tribal authority over nonmembers.

The justices declined to weigh in on the dispute over the lethal-injection protocol that the federal government plans to use when it resumes executions, the first of which are scheduled for July, after nearly 20 years. The justices turned down a request by four federal death-row inmates to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld new federal regulations for carrying out the death penalty. That decision, which a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit issued in April, overturned a ruling by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who had concluded that federal law requires the government to carry out executions using precisely the same protocol as the state where the execution takes place. The inmates came to the Supreme Court earlier this month, asking the justices to put the D.C. Circuit’s ruling on hold and take up their case, and on June 18 the court agreed to fast-track their petition for review. Today the justices denied that petition and the request to stay the lower court’s ruling; Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor indicated that they would have granted both the petition and the stay request.

The justices did not act on a petition for review filed by the Department of Justice in the dispute over efforts by the House Judiciary Committee to gain access to secret materials from the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., granted a request by the committee to gain access to parts of the report redacted under grand jury secrecy rules, and a federal appeals court upheld that decision. The DOJ asked the Supreme Court to weigh in; the justices considered the government’s petition at their conference last week but did not take any action on it today.

We expect orders from Wednesday’s conference on Thursday, July 2, at 9:30 a.m.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies