This Week at First Street: Arguments End and NLRB Showdown Begins
As spring actually starts to feel like spring, we're experiencing the same of end-of-school emotions that consume most high school kids this time of year: excitement and relief.
Exam season for SCOTUS litigators concluded on Wednesday as the Court heard its final pair of arguments for the 2012 Term: Metrish v. Lancaster and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar. Now the wait for
grades and graduation the remaining opinions of the term begins.
But we won't just be sunning and watching reality TV while the Court decides on the most important cases of the year. There's still real business happening on First Street.
- Petition filed. Thursday, the Obama administration officially asked the Court to reverse the D.C. Circuit's Noel Canning v. NLRB ruling regarding recess appointments, Reuters reports. (The appellate court ruled in January that recess appointments are limited to intercession recesses.) Considering the impact the D.C. Circuit's decision has on approximately 200 NLRB decisions, we would be shocked if the Court denied certiorari; pencil this one in on your list of grants for the 2013 Term.
- Petition granted. Monday, the Court granted certiorari in DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman, to decide whether a U.S. court can exercise general personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely on the fact that an indirect corporate subsidiary performs services on behalf of the defendant in the forum state. The Ninth Circuit previously held that Daimler AG, (a German public stock company that does not manufacture or sell products, own property, or employ workers in the United States) is subject to general personal jurisdiction in California for alleged human-rights violations committed in Argentina by an Argentine subsidiary against Argentine residents. This case should be an interesting follow-up to the Court's decision in Kiobel.
- Petition denied. Also on Monday, the Court denied certiorari in a Title IX retaliation case pitting Monica Emeldi, a former University of Oregon graduate student against the University after professors in her department refused to act as her dissertation chair. (We've previously covered the case here and here for FindLaw's Ninth Circuit Blog.) Those urging the Court to consider the case argued that it had major implications for academic freedom in doctoral education, Inside Higher Ed reports. Eric Schnapper, a law professor who represented Emeldi, said that the case is simply about discrimination, and that Emeldi should have the right to a trial on whether she has enough evidence that bias played a role in the demise of her Ph.D. ambitions.
There are almost 40 opinions still to come for the 2012 Term, so don't check out quite yet. The Court will issue more opinions next week, starting on Monday at 10 a.m. EST.