BEFORE MANY HAVE EVEN digested this term’s Supreme Court’s greatest hits, we have the following oral arguments (among others) as coming attractions in the Court’s 2023-2024 term, beginning in October.
In CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, the CFPB’s funding mechanism is challenged. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals previously found that funding the CFPB through the Federal Reserve was a violation of the Constitution’s Appropriations Clause, which gives Congress the sole “power of the purse” in appropriating taxpayer money. The appellate court’s decision should properly be upheld.
In Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, the Court will consider whether an Americans with Disabilities Act ‘tester’ has standing to sue a hotel, like 600 others that she never visited, for failing to offer disability accommodations. It’s difficult to see why a ‘tester’ would have standing when so many defendants in real cases and controversies have found to be lacking it despite having suffered actual damages.
In Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, the Court is asked by G.O.P. lawmakers to decide whether the lower court “disregarded the publicly available election data” and failed to examine the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent in this case alleging racial gerrymandering.
My most anticipated Supreme Court decision (already argued here) will be in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service issuance of a rule that would require fishing companies to pay for those who observe their fishing practices for compliance in a political regulatory or agency capture scenario.
The rule is seemingly self-serving, in that it keeps the government from bearing those costs, but also builds in inherent bias in the agency that could improperly influence its fair and impartial application of the rule.
That said, the case sets up an opportunity for a more conservative Court to overrule or at least continue to unwind the judicial principle from Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 case which delegated tremendous powers to administrative agencies to adjudicate disputes, based on the notion that these bureaucrats are experts and should therefore be deferred to when there is ambiguity in a statute. Known as the “Chevron Deference,”many unfortunate decisions have been reached by relying on it.
A bête noire of mine, with the Third Party Doctrine!
sua sponte 