The Supreme Court’s final slate of oral arguments next week will mark Justice Neil Gorsuch’s second week of arguments on the high court. And while the cases are not particularly high profile, they will give insight into how the new nine-justice court will function.
On Monday, the high court will hear a pair of cases dealing with due process. In McWilliams v. Dunn, the Supreme Court will consider the issue of whether precedent in another decision dictating that an indigent defendant receive meaningful expert assistance also requires that the expert be independent from the prosecution.
James McWilliams was convicted of murder during robbery as well as murder during rape in the death of Patricia Reynolds, who died in surgery later that day. A doctor conducted neuropsychological testing on McWilliams per defense counsel’s request, but the report arrived at the court the day before the sentencing hearing. The defense was not granted a continuance to review the report, and the court sentenced McWilliams to death by electrocution.
Several years later, McWilliams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court, which the court denied. Lower courts held McWilliams’ due process rights were not violated because he received an assessment from a competent psychiatric expert. The assessment the court received late came after the Alabama Department of Corrections conducted its own testing and recommended that a second doctor do additional testing.
In Davila v. Davis, the high court will look to determine whether Supreme Court precedent regarding ineffective state-appointed counsel also should apply to claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.
Erick Daniel Davila was sentenced to death for the killings of Annette Stevenson and her granddaughter, Queshawn Stevenson. Following the Supreme Court’s denial of his petition, Davila sought habeas relief in state courts and was denied in multiple courts as well as a federal court, which said the claim was procedurally defaulted. Davila then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that previous Supreme Court precedent meant his claim about ineffective state-appointed counsel could overcome the decision from the federal court.
The due process cases continue in another pair of arguments set for Tuesday when the Supreme Court will aim to resolve jurisdictional disputes. In Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, the Supreme Court will grapple with “whether a plaintiff’s claims arise out of or relate to a defendant’s forum activities when there is no causal link between the defendant’s forum contacts and the plaintiff’s claims — that is, where the plaintiff’s claims would be exactly the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.” A “forum contact” and “forum activity” refer to the defendant’s contact and activity in a particular forum, which become crucial to courts’ handling of various jurisdictional questions. When determining whether causation is crucial to the resolution of a dispute, the knowledge of the defendant’s contacts and the plaintiffs action matters.
Bristol-Myers Squibb makes the prescription drug Plavix, which prevents blood clots. Eighty-six California residents and several hundred non-California residents sued Bristol-Myers and McKesson Corp., which distributes Plavix in California, for product defects. Bristol-Myers argued that the residents’ claims had no link to its California activities. A California Court of Appeals rejected a trial court’s assessment that the drugmaker was subject to California jurisdiction. The jurisdictional issue has now made its way up to the high court.
Tuesday’s second case, BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, will give the high court the opportunity to answer whether a state court can choose not to follow a previous Supreme Court ruling that said that the Constitution’s Due Process Clause prohibits a state court from applying “general personal jurisdiction” over a defendant who does not live in the state where the lawsuit was filed.
Brent Tyrrell worked for BNSF and was allegedly exposed to toxins that caused him to develop fatal kidney cancer. Kelli Tyrrell, the administrator handling Brent’s estate, sued BNSF on Tyrrell’s behalf under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act for damages because of the injuries Brent sustained. BNSF filed a motion to dismiss Tyrrell’s claim, which was denied by a lower court. The case was filed in Montana state court, even though he was not exposed to the toxins in Montana and BNSF’s principal place of business is not in Montana, nor is it incorporated there. BNSF does business in Montana.
On the final day of arguments, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case involving patent disputes regarding the Food and Drug Administration licensing of vaccines, viruses, antitoxins and other biologics. The Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. and Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. cases were consolidated into one argument for Wednesday.
The final case scheduled to be argued by the Supreme Court is Maslenjak v. United States, a controversy involving tension between immigration and citizenship. Specifically the high court will look to determine whether the 6th Circuit incorrectly ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen can lose citizenship as the result of a false statement made in a criminal proceeding.
Davina Maslenjak met with a U.S. immigration official to obtain refugee status for her family near the end of the Bosnian civil war. Maslenjak told the official of her family’s fear of persecution and fear of reprisal as her husband avoided getting drafted into the militia during the war. She was granted refugee status in 1999, immigrated in 2000, and naturalized in 2007. She denied ever giving false information to gain entry, while completing the naturalization process.
Her husband, Ratko, was convicted in 2007 of making false statements on a government document because he served in a Serbian militia unit. Ratko applied for asylum to avoid deportation and his wife admitted under oath at his hearing that she previously lied to an immigration officer. She was later convicted of naturalization fraud and then stripped of her citizenship.
The conclusion of the two weeks of arguments in April mark the only arguments of the entire term when the high court heard cases with a full complement of nine justices. At the 3rd Circuit’s annual conference earlier this week, Justice Samuel Alito reportedly sounded relieved by Gorsuch’s addition to the Supreme Court. Alito also talked about the struggle facing Gorsuch during April’s two weeks of arguments, and noted that Alito had three weeks between the time of his confirmation and the first arguments he heard on the high court.
“Justice Gorsuch had one week, and it was Easter week, to get ready for the April arguments,” Alito said, according to Law360. “As tired as he must have been after the confirmation, he had to be prepared to hear argument and vote on 12 cases over the course of these two weeks. That is something of a challenge.”
The first major challenge Gorsuch played a role in resolving resulted in Arkansas executing a convicted killer for the first time since 2005. In a last-minute challenge of Arkansas’ executions late last week, the Supreme Court split 5-4 on an action that set the executions in motion. Gorsuch voted in the majority alongside his Republican-appointed colleagues.
Last week also featured arguments in one of the most contentious cases of the term, Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, a religious liberty controversy. In Trinity Lutheran, the Supreme Court is looking to decide whether Missouri violated the U.S. Constitution in its preventing a church-operated daycare and preschool from funding for nonprofits to resurface playgrounds. Missouri’s Constitution includes a provision similar to those in 38 other states that denies public funds from directly or indirectly going to any church or religion.
The case pitted the court’s left-leaning justices, including Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, against the high court’s conservative bloc, led in the dispute by Alito. Missouri’s defense of denying funding to Trinity Lutheran faced a series of hard-charging questions from Alito that prompted skepticism from Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.
The high court waited to hear arguments in the Trinity Lutheran case for a long enough period that nine justices were seated when the controversy came before the court. Some court-watchers speculated that could have been the result of the high court appearing to be evenly divided on the issue, but whether that remains the case after arguments is yet to be determined.
Before the Supreme Court meets again after this week to hear another argument, it may have another vacancy develop in its ranks. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, who oversees the congressional confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees, told his Iowan constituents this week that he is expecting another vacancy to develop this summer. Grassley’s prediction comes after an identical forecast from Texas Sen. Ted Cruz earlier this spring. Grassley told the Washington Examiner in February that he expected another vacancy to come open before 2020, but the expedited timeline suggests Grassley may be presuming another change is imminent.
Another vacancy is expected to produce a confirmation battle as bruising as the one to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, given the potential for President Trump to select a conservative nominee to help chart the direction of the court for decades to come.
Litigation regarding the Trump’s travel ban is also making its way through lower courts, with some onlookers expecting the controversy to arrive at the Supreme Court later this summer. Whether the case would be handled in an expedited fashion, because of the urgent nature of the issue, may depend on the specifics of whichever challenge makes its way to the Supreme Court.
