Court sets quiet March argument calendar

0
54


SCOTUS NEWS
Banner191209

The Supreme Court ended a week of momentous news on a much more low-key note, releasing on Friday afternoon the argument calendar for the justices’ March arguments. The court will hear eight hours of oral arguments over six days, on topics ranging from arbitration to international child-custody law.

Here is the full list of cases scheduled for the March argument session:

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (March 21): Whether an employee is required to show prejudice to prove that a company waived its right to require her to arbitrate her claims, especially when she would not have been required to make such a showing for another contract.

Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (March 21): Whether Republican legislators who wanted to intervene to defend the North Carolina’s voter ID law were required to show that the state’s interest was not adequately represented by the state’s Democratic attorney general.

Golan v. Saada (March 22): Whether, when a district court concludes that the return of a child to the country where she lives under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction would pose a grave risk of harm, the district court must consider measures that would reduce that risk.

ZF Automotive US v. Luxshare (March 23) (consolidated with AlixPartners LLP v. Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States for one hour of oral argument): Whether a federal law that allows litigants to invoke the power of U.S. courts to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in “a foreign or international tribunal” applies to private commercial arbitral tribunals.

Ledure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. (March 28): When a locomotive is “in use” on a railroad’s line and therefore subject to the Locomotive Inspection Act and its regulations.

Southwest Airlines v. Saxon (March 28): Whether an airline employee who works as a ramp supervisor is a “transportation worker” and therefore not required to arbitrate her wage dispute with the airline.

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety (March 29): Whether Congress has the power to authorize suits against states, without their consent, under its constitutional war powers.

Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (March 30): Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise claims on behalf of others, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act. [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to SCOTUSblog in various capacities, was among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of Viking River Cruises at the certiorari stage.]

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court. 



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here