Mission Creep Watch: A non-relisted case the Supreme Court might grant

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

The Supreme Court continues its blistering pace sorting through relisted cases, having resolved another six last week. As I suggested in last week’s column, instead of choosing between the two competing cases addressing the construction of the First Step Act’s sentence-reduction provisions (Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States), the court granted both. 

The court also agreed to take up a case, Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, asking whether there’s a time limit for setting aside a judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as Alabama’s case asking whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing a claim under Atkins v. Virginia that a capital defendant cannot be executed because of his intellectual disabilities. 

The court also denied review of Ohio’s petition seeking review of a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit holding that a prisoner’s claim of newly discovered evidence was timely. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, filed an opinion regarding that denial. In Alito’s view, although the 6th Circuit’s decision was wrong, it was understandable that the court did not summarily reverse as Ohio had asked because the prisoner had finished serving her sentence. Alito stressed that “lower courts should not construe the denial of review as approval of the decision below.” 

Lastly, the court denied review without comment of the Republican National Committee’s petition claiming that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had usurped the state legislature’s authority to set the rules for elections by flagrantly misconstruing a state statute.

There are 113 petitions and applications scheduled for this week’s conference, and there are no newly relisted cases among them. Because people read this column to get a preview of grants and it’s a light week, I thought that (at the risk of mission creep) I would preview a non-relisted case that strikes me as a likely grant.

Money damages for religious-liberty violations

Damon Landor is a devout Rastafarian who has taken a religious vow not to cut his dreadlocks. While incarcerated, he was restrained and had his head forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison officials even after he had showed them a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit holding that cutting religious prisoners’ dreadlocks violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

After his release, Landor sued the prison officials in their individual capacities, but the district court dismissed his suit on the ground that decisions in the 5th Circuit do not allow individuals to bring lawsuits for compensatory or punitive damages under RLUIPA. The 5th Circuit affirmed that decision in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety, reasoning that it had previously held that “RLUIPA was ‘enacted pursuant to Congress’s Spending Clause power,’” and that because “Spending Clause legislation ‘operates like a contract’ … ‘only the grant recipient—the state—may be liable for its violation.’” 

By a vote of 11-6 and over two dissenting opinions, the full court denied review. Judge Edith Brown Clement, joined by eight judges, concurred in the denial of rehearing, saying that “only the Supreme Court can answer” whether such damages are permissible under the spending clause.

Landor, supported by eight “friend of the court” briefs, now asks the court to settle the question: Does RLUIPA’s authorization of “appropriate relief” authorize suits for money damages against state officials in their personal capacities? Back in October, the court asked for the views of the solicitor general. 

The United States recently weighed in and recommends that the court grant review. The federal government points to the court’s decision in Tanzin v. Tanvir, which allowed similar suits under an identically worded provision of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act – RLUIPA’s twin in both text and purpose. The United States argues “[t]hat the application of RLUIPA in this case reflects an exercise of Congress’s spending power provides no basis to depart from” Tanzin’s conclusion, and it contends that the 5th Circuit’s rationale implicates a circuit split. 

Meanwhile, Louisiana argues that Tanzin can’t save Landor’s claims, because RFRA was enacted under a distinct constitutional provision, and Congress can’t use the spending clause to sneak personal-capacity liability into what is effectively a contract with the states. In a supplemental brief, Louisiana accuses the government of repeatedly changing its position on this issue, and it argues that there is not actually any circuit split. 

If the court is looking for a clean vehicle to resolve a long percolating issue that has divided judges (and if you believe the government, circuits), this case may be hard for the justices to pass up. Like the now-released Landor’s locks, this case’s chances of review are growing. 

New Relists

If you’re looking here, you need to focus on reading comprehension.

Returning Relists

First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, 24-781

Issue: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?

(Relisted after the April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15, May 22, May 29 and June 5 conferences.)

GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, California, 24-435

Issue: Whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.

(Relisted after the April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15, May 22, May 29 and June 5 conferences.)

Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta, 24-728

Issues: (1) Whether a party alleging that California’s Proposition 12, “which enacts a pork sales ban to regulate the manner in which pigs are housed in states across the country,” discriminates against interstate commerce, both directly and under Pike v. Bruce Church, states a claim; and (2) whether lower federal courts evaluating fractured opinions from this court consider all justices’ opinions to determine the majority position on a legal issue, or instead are limited to consider only opinions concurring in the result.

(relisted after the May 15, May 22, May 29 and June 5 conferences.)

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, 24-813

Issue: (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States “for or relating to any act under color of such office;” and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.

(Relisted after the May 29 and June 5 conferences.)