The Supreme Court’s latest list of relisted petitions presents four new cases, each addressing significant legal questions with potential implications across various fields. The cases up for discussion include matters on eminent domain compensation, federal disability rights, sex discrimination in academia, and the pursuit of post-conviction relief.
- Pipeline Pay: The case of Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission, Inc. is centered around how “just compensation” should be calculated when eminent domain powers under the Natural Gas Act are exercised. The crux lies in whether state or federal compensation rules should prevail, a debate further fueled by a circuit split acknowledged by four appellate courts.
- Pandemic Preemption: In Doe v. Dynamic Physical Therapy, LLC, the petitioner argues that Louisiana’s emergency health law—providing immunity to healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic—should not override federal disability claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The legal question examines whether state laws can impose higher standards than federal statutes allow.
- Professors’ Parity: The case of Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia questions whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can file sex discrimination lawsuits under Title IX. The appellate court’s decision hinged on whether Title VII is the exclusive legal pathway for such claims, a question complicated by contrasting opinions among various circuits.
- A Prisoner’s Plea: Lastly, Allen v. Guzman involves a California prisoner’s petition for post-conviction relief, arguing a denial of due process after not being provided legal counsel under the state’s Racial Justice Act. This highlights questions about federally protected liberty interests stemming from state statutes.
As the Supreme Court continues to review relisted petitions, the outcome of these cases will clarify jurisdictional boundaries, the relationship between state and federal laws, and the scope of legal rights afforded to diverse groups. For a more detailed analysis, visit the original article on SCOTUSblog.