US Supreme Court Watch

Recent decisions:

Pending cases:

  • NLRB v. Noel Canning — (1) Whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised during a recess that occurs within a session of the Senate, or is instead limited to recesses that occur between enumerated sessions of the Senate; (2) whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess; and (3) [added by the Court] whether the President’s recess-appointment power may be exercised when the Senate is convening every three days in pro forma sessions. Oral argument January 13.
  • Harris v. Quinn — Constitutionality of compelling home-care providers to make payments to a union that represents their interests before state agencies.  Oral argument January 21.
  • Lane v. Franks — Whether the 1st amendment allows a public employer to fire an employee for giving truthful subpoenaed testimony. Oral argument April 28.
  • Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk – Whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act. Oral argument to be scheduled for October 2014 or later.

Certiorari petitions (not yet granted) we are watching:

  • Young v. United Parcel Service — Whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are “similar in their ability or inability to work.” [The Court has invited the Solicitor General to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.]

Certiorari dismissed:

  • UNITE HERE Local 355 v. Mulhall – (12/10/2013) The writ of certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted, so the Court did not decide whether union-management neutrality agreements are lawful.
  • Madigan v. Levin (10/15/2013) The writ of certiorari was dismissed as improvidently granted, so the Court did not decide whether public sector employee can bring an age bias claim directly under the Constitution without following ADEA procedures.