As the U.S. Supreme Court wraps up its November oral arguments sessions, several significant legal cases vie for attention. The cases under consideration delve into a diverse range of topics, from the Second Amendment rights of individuals with domestic violence orders to the applicability of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to the federal government, all the way to veterans’ education benefits.
One of the main hearings falls under the Fair Credit Reporting Act’s purview, exploring whether the federal government’s sovereign immunity shields it from private damages lawsuits. The question arises from a dispute initiated by a Pennsylvania resident, Reginald Kirtz, against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), where the latter allegedly falsely reported his loan payment status. The Supreme Court has been asked to overturn a Third Circuit panel’s decision that permitted Kirtz’s allegations against the USDA; it had earlier been dismissed by a Pennsylvania district judge in May 2021.
An equally engaging case on the docket concerns the Second Amendment, where the federal statute prohibiting individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms is challenged. Hat-tip to a Fifth Circuit panel’s February opinion, Zackey Rahimi, a Texas citizen, appealed against the prohibition after being sentenced to over six years in prison for violating the restraining order.
The final argument of the November session reviews the calculation of veterans’ education benefits, more specifically, whether a veteran with two separate periods of qualifying service under different G.I. Bills is entitled to 12 additional months of education benefits. The question originates from a dispute involving U.S. Army veteran James Rudisill, who has petitioned the justices to overturn a Federal Circuit decision rejecting his bid for extra benefits.
Each of these cases reflects the intricate balance within varying aspects of American law, from personal liberties to the control of governmental power, further highlighting the Supreme Court’s instrumental role in interpreting and shaping the law of the land.