Amy Howe

Nov 10 2022

Seven mostly low-profile cases are slated for oral arguments in January

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.

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
  • 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
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