Today the Supreme Court released its calendar for the October argument session, which begins on Monday, Oct. 5, and continues through Wednesday, Oct. 14. The justices will hear 10 hours of oral argument over five days; they will not hear argument on Monday, Oct. 12, which is a federal holiday. All of the cases scheduled for argument in October had originally been scheduled for oral argument in March or April of this year but were postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. The shift of the spring cases to the October argument session also means that the challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate will not be argued until the court’s November argument session at the earliest. That session begins on Nov. 2, the day before Election Day.
The cases scheduled for oral argument during the October session are:
Carney v. Adams (Oct. 5): Whether a Delaware law that limits the number of judges affiliated with a particular political party to a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts violates the Constitution.
Texas v. New Mexico (Oct. 5): Dispute between New Mexico and Texas over the waters of the Pecos River.
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management (Oct. 6): Whether federal employee-benefits laws supersede state regulation of rates at which prescription-drug middlemen reimburse pharmacies.
Tanzin v. Tanvir (Oct. 6): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual federal employees.
Google v. Oracle America (Oct. 7): Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner.]
Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (consolidated with Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer) (Oct. 7): Whether a state court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the defendant’s contacts with the state did not cause the plaintiff’s claims.
City of Chicago v. Fulton (Oct. 13): Whether the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay requires creditors to turn over repossessed property as soon as a debtor files for bankruptcy.
Torres v. Madrid (Oct. 14): What it means to be “seized” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment’s ban on unreasonable seizures.
Pereida v. Barr (Oct. 14): Whether an immigrant who is convicted of a state crime can apply for relief from deportation when it isn’t clear whether his conviction corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.