The Supreme Court will commence its 2023-24 term on the conventional first Monday in October, with six arguments over five days on topics ranging from federal sentencing laws to voting rights. Live audio of oral arguments will continue to be provided for interested public, indicating the court’s sustained commitment to public accessibility.
The new term will begin with an exploration of statutory interpretation in Pulsifer v. United States, a case regarding federal sentencing laws. It involves the interpretation of the word “and” in the federal law at issue and whether it should be comprehended as “and” or “or”. Pulsifer, the defendant in the case, contends that he qualifies for a lighter sentence under the First Step Act of 2018’s “safety valve”, a measure designed to provide judges with discretion to impose lighter sentences for defendants who meet certain criteria.
The Justices will hear a challenge to the funding mechanism of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association. This case began as a challenge to a 2017 “payday lending” rule barring lenders from making multiple repayment withdrawal attempts from a borrower’s account, subjecting borrowers to additional penalties and fees if the repayment is not covered by the available balance. The court will also consider another case, Acheson Hotels v. Laufer, which examines the legal right of a self-proclaimed civil rights “tester” to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
In Murray v. UBS Securities, another case this term, the court will explore the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Trevor Murray, the plaintiff, argues that the company dismissed him after he reported allegations of pressured research malpractice, contravening SEC regulations. However, UBS suggests that the ruling of the lower court is sound, stating that a plaintiff must show that the employer intended to discriminate.
This term will also see the Supreme Court continuing its focus on redistricting cases in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. The essence of this case is to challenge the unconstitutional gerrymandering of one of the South Carolina’s seven congressional districts, allegedly done to ensure a solid Republican footing.
This article was originally published at Howe on the Court.