The Supreme Court on Thursday morning released its calendar for the January argument session. After hearing arguments during the first three months of the 2022-23 term in blockbuster cases involving affirmative action, voting, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and tension between free speech and state nondiscrimination laws, the justices will begin 2023 on a quieter note. The justices will hear oral arguments in just seven cases over five days, on issues ranging from the attorney-client privilege to immigration law and the National Labor Relations Act.
Here is the full list of cases scheduled for the January argument session:
- In re Grand Jury (Jan. 9): Whether a law firm that specializes in international tax issues must turn over documents that the firm says are protected by the attorney-client privilege, but also contain non-legal advice.
- Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (Jan. 9): Whether the FLRA can regulate the labor practices of state national guards.
- Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Jan. 10): Whether federal labor laws trump a state-court lawsuit against a union for intentionally destroying an employer’s property during a property dispute.
- Financial Oversight Board v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (Jan. 11): Whether Puerto Rico’s financial oversight board is immune from a lawsuit filed by a nonprofit press group seeking documents from the board.
- Santos-Zacaria v. Garland (Jan. 17): Whether federal immigration law precludes a federal court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding because the immigrant had not filed a motion to reconsider.
- Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States (Jan. 17): Whether criminal charges can go forward against a Turkish bank owned and controlled by the Turkish government.
- Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools (Jan. 18): Whether and when federal education law required a Michigan student who did not receive a qualified sign-language interpreter for years to fully pursue his claims against the school district in administrative proceedings even when doing so would be pointless.
This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.
