Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Dec 10, 2024. Petitioner: Seven County Infrastructure Coalition.Respondent: Eagle County, Colorado. Advocates: Paul D. Clement (for the Petitioners) Edwin S. Kneedler (for the Federal Respondents) William M. Jay (for Respondents Eagle County, et al.) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The Surface Transportation Board (STB) granted a petition from the Seven County Infrastructure Coalition to construct and operate an 80-mile railway in Utah’s Uinta Basin. The railway’s primary purpose would be to transport waxy crude oil from the basin to the national rail network. The STB conducted an environmental review process, including the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Board issued a final decision in December 2021, authorizing the construction and operation of the railway subject to environmental mitigation conditions. In its environmental analysis, the STB considered various impacts of the railway’s construction and operation within the project area, including effects on water resources, air quality, special status species, land use, and local economies. However, the Board declined to analyze certain “downline impacts”—effects from increased train traffic on existing rail lines beyond the new railway. The STB also omitted analysis of other potential environmental effects, such as increased crude oil refining impacts on Gulf Coast communities, upline impacts of increased drilling in the Uinta Basin, and downline effects of potential oil spills along the Colorado River. Finally, the Board did not disclose the potential effects of the project on historic sites or structures along the Union Pacific line in Eagle County. The Board justified these omissions by arguing that minimal increases in train traffic on existing lines were unlikely to cause significant impacts, and that some effects were beyond the scope of its regulatory authority. Eagle County asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to review the Board’s orders, and the granted the petitions in part, denied them in part, and vacated the underlying order. Question Does the National Environmental Policy Act require an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority?

Kousisis v. United States Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Dec 9, 2024. Petitioner: Stamatios Kousisis.Respondent: United States of America. Advocates: Jeffrey L. Fisher (for the Petitioners) Eric J. Feigin (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) The U.S. Department of Transportation provides funds to state agencies for transportation projects, requiring recipients to set participation goals for disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs). Kousisis, Frangos, and their companies, Alpha and Liberty Maintenance, were awarded contracts for two Philadelphia projects with DBE requirements. They committed to working with Markias, Inc., a certified DBE, claiming they would obtain millions in paint supplies from the company. However, the defendants submitted false documentation about Markias’s role in the projects. Instead of Markias supplying products or performing a commercially useful function as required, it served merely as a pass-through. The defendants arranged for actual suppliers to send invoices to Markias, which then issued its own invoices with a 2.25% fee added. This scheme allowed the defendants to appear compliant with DBE requirements, a condition for receiving payments and avoiding penalties. The jury convicted Kousisis and Alpha of false statements, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and wire fraud. The district court calculated the loss based on the defendants’ “ill-gotten profits,” determining that this was an appropriate measure of loss when the actual loss to the government was not measurable at the time of sentencing. This calculation led to a 20-point sentencing enhancement corresponding to a loss between $9.5 million and $25 million. Kousisis and Alpha appealed their convictions and the calculation of the loss for sentencing purposes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the loss calculation. Question Can deception to induce a commercial exchange constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme?

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Dec 9, 2024. Petitioner: Nick Feliciano.Respondent: Department of Transportation. Advocates: Andrew T. Tutt (for the Petitioner) Nicole F. Reaves (for the Respondent) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) Nick Feliciano, an air traffic controller for the Federal Aviation Administration and a Coast Guard reserve officer, performed active duty from July to September 2012 under 10 U.S.C. § 12302, receiving differential pay. His service was extended to July 2013 without differential pay. From July 2013 to September 2014, he served again under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(d) to support various operations, followed by medical treatment until February 2017 under 10 U.S.C. § 12301(h). In 2018, he filed an appeal alleging a hostile work environment and later amended it to include claims about denied differential pay under 5 U.S.C. § 5538. The Board denied his request for differential pay, citing Adams v. Department of Homeland Security, 3 F.4th 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which required service in a statutory contingency operation for eligibility. Mr. Feliciano appealed this decision. Question Is a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.

United States v. Skrmetti Wikipedia · Justia · Docket · oyez.org Argued on Dec 4, 2024. Petitioner: United States of America.Respondent: Jonathan Skrmetti, Attorney General and Reporter for Tennessee. Advocates: Elizabeth B. Prelogar (for the Petitioner) Chase B. Strangio (for the Respondents L.W., et al., supporting the Petitioner) J. Matthew Rice (for the Respondents Jonathan Skrmetti, et al.) Facts of the case (from oyez.org) In 2023, Tennessee and Kentucky passed laws restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors. These laws prohibited healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers, hormone therapy, and sex-transition surgeries to minors for the purpose of altering their appearance or validating their gender identity when inconsistent with their biological sex. Both laws included exceptions for certain medical conditions and provided mechanisms for enforcement, including professional discipline for healthcare providers and extended statutes of limitations for lawsuits. In response, groups of transgender minors, their parents, and healthcare providers challenged these laws in federal court. The plaintiffs argued that the laws violated their constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. They sought preliminary injunctions to prevent the laws from taking effect. In both cases, district courts initially granted injunctions, finding that the laws likely infringed on parents’ fundamental rights to direct their children's medical care and discriminated based on sex. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit stayed these injunctions, allowing the laws to go into effect pending further legal proceedings. Question Does a Tennessee law restricting certain medical treatments for transgender minors violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?