The Court has another busy week ahead. Over the course of Tuesday and Wednesday, the Court will hear arguments in four cases, issue orders from its January 17 conference, and possibly hand down opinions. Come Thursday, the Court will meet for conference. The Court did not sit on Monday, January 16, the federal holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

On Tuesday, the Court will hear arguments in Lynch v. Dimaya and Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson. Lynch addresses the Immigration and Nationality Act and its power to govern removal of illegal aliens. The Court must analyze whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b) of the Act is unconstitutionally vague. In his SCOTUSblog argument preview, Kevin Johnson explains that the case raises a due process vagueness challenge to a civil immigration statute. The federal government argues that such a challenge is not cognizable but that, in any event, the statute is not vague. Because of the possibility of expanding the void-for-vagueness doctrine into the immigration context, Johnson argues that this case could have “potentially far-reaching constitutional implications.” In the second case of the day, Midland Funding, the Court must decide whether it is a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to file a proof of claim on a time-barred debt in a bankruptcy proceeding. In other words, as Diane Davis of Bloomberg BNA explains, the case will address “just how much the debt buying and collection industry can leverage the bankruptcy system to collect on debts they otherwise couldn’t pursue.”

On Wednesday, the Court will hear arguments in Lee v. Tam and Ziglar v. Abbasi.  Lee presents a potential challenge to the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The case involves an Asian-American band called “The Slants” who sought to trademark their band’s name. However, the United States Patent and Trademark Office denied the trademark registration request under the “disparagement” provision of the Lanham Act. The provision provides that no trademark shall be refused unless “it [c]onsists of…matter which disparage…persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The Court will consider address whether this provision violates the First Amendment. NPR discussed this case in its weekly “Words You’ll Hear” segment. Finally on Wednesday, the Court will hear a case that relates to the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. A group of Muslim men were detained by the United States after the attacks, and they subsequently sued for violation of their constitutional rights. The question in front of the Court is about the men’s right to sue federal officials. SCOTUSblog explains the arguments the Court is likely to hear on Wednesday. The three basic questions in the case are whether the judge-made cause of action under which the men are suing, known as a Bivens action, reaches the allegations of the case, whether the defendants are immune, and whether the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim in their complaint. The Guardian addresses the implications of this case under the Trump Administration and more generally discusses civil rights organizations’ expectations for the next four years.

The Court’s first week of hearing arguments after the holidays will be busy. The week’s schedule includes arguments in five cases.
On Monday the Court will first hear Nelson v. Colorado, a case deciding whether the state’s Exoneration Act violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Under the statute, individuals whose convictions have been reversed must prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence in order to recover the payments they were required to make to the government as a result of those convictions. The petitioners, Shannon Nelson and Louis Alonzo Madden, were convicted in separate trials of unrelated sexual assault offenses, and each assessed fees and restitution the state imposes only upon convicted defendants. Nelson’s conviction was reversed, and the jury her second trial acquitted her on all counts. The trial court ruled that it lacked authority to directly return the $702.10 that her inmate account had been docked, and Nelson appealed. Madden’s conviction was invalidated on post-conviction review. The trial court refunded Madden his fees, but not the $757.75 in restitution he had already paid. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in both cases that defendants in their position are entitled to a full refund of any and all monies paid relevant to a conviction that has been vacated. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed in both cases. Chief Justice Nancy Rice held for the majority that no state law authorized trial courts to issue such refunds, and that the civil remedy in the Exoneration Act satisfies whatever due process rights such individuals might have. SCOTUSblog’s Steve Vladeck previews the argument .The New York Times discusses fees imposed by various government entities, including the fees in this case.

Also on Monday the Court will hear Lewis v. Clarke, which presents the issue of whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment. In 2011, William Clarke, who was on the job, working for the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, rear ended Brian and Michelle Lewis on a highway in Connecticut. The gaming authority is an arm of the Mohegan Tribe. Clarke was driving gamblers home from the Mohegan Sun Casino, owned by the tribe. The Lewises sued Clarke in Connecticut court. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the tribe’s sovereign immunity applied to Clarke, and therefore, the Lewises can sue in a gaming disputes court operated by the tribe, but not in Connecticut state court. The Atlantic discusses the case, and SCOTUSblog has an argument preview here:

On Tuesday the Court will hear another two cases, starting with Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman. In this case, the Court will decide whether state no-surcharge laws unconstitutionally restrict speech conveying price information or regulate economic conduct. Merchants, led by Expressions Hair Design, have argued that the New York anti-surcharge statute violates the First Amendment because it prevents businesses from describing any higher price they charge to card users as a “surcharge”. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the New York statute does not regulate speech, only conduct. The court held that the statute affected only a “pricing practice,” which does not have First Amendment protections. The petitioners argue that the statute would allow the merchants to charge different prices to card users and customers who pay in cash if they told the cash users they were getting a discount. They argue that the statute prohibits only the true statement that merchants are imposing a “surcharge” for payment by card. The difference between using the term “cash discount” or “card surcharge,” they argue, can affect customers’ responses. By forbidding merchants to use the surcharge label, the statute prevents merchants from using accurate information tin communication with their customers, they argue. Bloomberg provides a summary of the case.

Also on Tuesday the Court will hear arguments in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger. The Court will decide whether a federal court must tailor compensatory civil sanctions imposed under inherent powers to harm directly caused by sanctionable misconduct, as well as what such a causation requirement would involve. Leroy, Donna, Barry and Suzanne Haeger were injured when one of the Goodyear G159 tires on their motor home failed while the car was traveling on an Arizona highway. The Haegers sued in 2005. Discovery commenced in federal court, where the case was moved. After settlement, the Haegers moved for discovery sanctions because of Goodyear’s failure to disclose the results of the federally mandated “Heat Rise” test. The district court relied on its inherent power to sanction. The court found that Goodyear and its lawyers had acted in bad faith and ordered the tire company and two of its attorneys to pay more than $2.7 million in attorney’s fees and costs. The district court did not give Goodyear or its lawyers a jury trial before the sanctions. The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The court of appeals held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the full amount of litigation fees, even without finding a precise linkage between the acts of bad faith and the Haegers’ trial costs. SCOTUSblog delves into the case.

On Wednesday, the Court will hear Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, which presents the issue of what level of educational benefit school districts must confer on children with disabilities to satisfy the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Endrew F. (also known as Drew), is an autistic student who attended Douglas County School District in Colorado from preschool through fourth grade under an Individualized Education Program. His parents disagreed with school officials about the IEP proposed for him for fifth grade, so they enrolled him in a private school, where he has, according to them, “made academic, social, and behavioral progress.” Drew and his parents filed a complaint with the state’s department of education. They claimed the district had denied Drew a FAPE (“free, appropriate public education”) as the Act guarantees, and sought reimbursement for the tuition they had paid to the private school. A hearing officer ruled for the school district, finding that Drew had progressed in the district. Drew and his parents then sued in federal district court, which also ruled in favor of the school district. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit upheld that ruling. It said that the school district needed to try to provide Drew with an educational benefit that was “merely more than de minimis.” Drew’s proposed IEP was “substantively adequate” under that test, the court concluded. The Denver Post says this could be a landmark case for students with disabilities throughout the nation. Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog also discusses what “appropriate” educational benefit means with regard to FAPE.

The Court will meet in Conference on Friday both to discuss argued cases from the week and to rule on pending petitions for certiorari.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases. On Monday the Court will hear arguments in Beckles v. United States. Travis Beckles was convicted in 2007 of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The presentence investigation found Beckles to be an armed career criminal. He also was considered a “career offender” under one of the guidelines’ provisions because guideline commentary declared possession of a sawed-off shotgun to be a crime of violence under Section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the sentencing guidelines. Last year, in Johnson v. United States,  the Supreme Court struck down the “residual clause” of the ACCA. The residual clause had said that any felony that “otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” is included among the category of “violent felonies.” The court ruled that the clause was unconstitutionally vague because it did not give ordinary people sufficient notice of what conduct the statute prohibits. Seven justices (Justice Kagan is recused) will decide three issues: is Johnson retroactively applicable to the guideline residual clause of the Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA); is Johnson’s constitutional holding applicable to Section 4B1.2(a)(2) of the sentencing guidelines; and is possession of sawed-off shotgun a “crime of violence” under the guidelines after Johnson? The Daily Caller discusses how the case gives the court the opportunity to revisit the Auer Doctrine. Scotusblog also discusses the case in more detail, here.

The Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in Moore v. Texas, which presents the issue of whether it is constitutional to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability in determining whether someone may be executed. In 1980, Moore, then 20 years old, robbed a supermarket with two other men. Moore was convicted of the shooting death of one of the store’s employees and sentenced to death. More than 30 years later, Moore was again sentenced to death, but a state trial court determined that Moore is intellectually disabled and cannot be executed. On appeal, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, using standards from 1992 rather than current standards, reversed, holding that Moore had not established that he was intellectually disabled. The Court will decide whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and the Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability when deciding whether someone may be executed. As ISCOTUSnow reported last week, Tim Shriver, Chairman of the Special Olympics, weighs in on the case in this Time opinion piece. And The Economist argues that the state’s ideas on which it bases its executions are “used nowhere else in America.” SCOTUSblog also has more information.

Wednesday the court will hear arguments in Jennings v. Rodriguez. The case presents the issue of whether immigrants must be guaranteed a bond hearing and possible release from custody. Alejandro Rodriguez, a class representative, is a lawful permanent resident of the United States. The U.S. government sought to remove him from the U.S. based on criminal convictions for possession of a controlled substance and “joyriding.” The government detained him for more than three years without a bond hearing. An immigration court later granted Rodriguez “cancellation of removal,” and he remains in the country. The justices will also have to decide: whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months; and whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, whether the length of the alien’s detention must be weighed in favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months. Law 360 offers a glimpse at the attorney who will be arguing the case, Ahilan Arulanantham, who has recently won a McArthur Award. And SCOTUSblog has more information about the case.

This week, the Supreme Court will not hear any oral arguments but will be holding Conference on November 22. SCOTUSblog discusses some of the petitions likely under consideration.

One interesting petition the Court is expected to review is Broom v. Ohio. This capital case from the Supreme Court of Ohio addresses the case of respondent Romell Broom, who was sentenced to death upon his conviction for murder in 1984. Ohio attempted to execute Broom in 2009 by lethal injection but the procedure failed when Ohio failed to follow its established execution protocol. Broom argues three constitutional violations: that the original attempt at execution constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment, that a future execution attempt would constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and that a second execution attempt would violate Fifth 14th  Amendment protection against double jeopardy. This case was originally scheduled for Conference on October 28, and it has been relisted several times, suggesting that at least some Justices are very interested in taking the case.

A second interesting petition is White v. Pauly, a case from the 10th circuit, which examines the qualified immunity rights of New Mexico State Police officers. In 2011, the officers shot and killed Samuel Pauly in his own home while responding to a road-rage incident involving Pauly’s brother Daniel. The Court is being asked to examine whether the 10th Circuit correctly denied qualified immunity to the officers, and whether the 10th Circuit came reached its conclusion by considering the issue at too high a level of generality instead of focusing on the specific facts of the case. The petitioner police officers argue that the 10th Circuit considered the validity of the use of force from the perspective of the Pauly brothers and not from the perspective of reasonable police officers.

Finally, in Stokes v. South Carolina, the Court examines whether the petitioner’s Sixth Amendment guarantee of conflict-free representation was violated. Sammie Louis Stokes was convicted of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder, and was sentenced to death in 1999. Stokes argues that his Sixth Amendment right to conflict-free representation was violated when Thomas Sims was appointed to represent him in 1999. Sims prosecuted Stokes in 1991 in an unrelated assault and battery case. The case was originally scheduled for the October 28 Conference and has been relisted several times.

To stay on top of the latest Supreme Court happenings, follow @ISCOTUS on Twitter.