A Packed Week at 1 First St NE

This week, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in numerous blockbuster cases: City of Grants Pass [[link removed]] , Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney [[link removed]] , Idaho v. United States [[link removed]] , and Trump v. United States [[link removed]].

Monday brought oral arguments in City of Grants Pass , out of the Ninth Circuit, which concerns the constitutionality of making being homeless a crime. An Oregon city has criminalized camping on public property despite a prior Ninth Circuit ruling on a similar law in an Idaho city finding it unconstitutional. Riffing on that ruling, three people who do not have housing in Grants Pass, Oregon, challenged its “camping ban,” arguing that it violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment”—much as the Supreme Court found [[link removed]] that a California law criminalizing people for being addicted to drugs, regardless of evidence of drug use in that state, violated the Eighth Amendment in 1962. The plaintiffs succeeded in the Ninth Circuit and now await the Supreme Court’s take.

On Tuesday , the Supreme Court heard Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, a case that presents this Court with the opportunity to further undermine the National Labor Relations Act and National Labor Relations Board following its problematic ruling in Glacier Northwest [[link removed]] . The NLRB has had to request 12 federal injunctions against Starbucks through the federal courts in just the last two years following Starbucks’s mistreatment of workers attempting to organize and unionize. This is Starbucks’ bid to make it more difficult for the NLRB to obtain such injunctions to protect workers and shield them from retaliation.

Come Wednesday , the Court heard Idaho v. United States , consolidated with Moyle v. United States , surrounding whether Idaho’s “Defense of Life Act,” a draconian abortion ban, currently enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, or the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, known as EMTALA, controls when a pregnant person facing a life-threatening emergency seeks care at a hospital that receives Medicare funds. If Idaho’s law controls, pregnant people will be denied reproductive care regardless of the implications for their health and survival. If, however, the Court acknowledges that EMTALA preempts Idaho’s antediluvian law, a pregnant person who seeks care at a qualifying hospital will be guaranteed “necessary stabilizing treatment” — wherever they are, whatever the state law concerning abortion is.

NB: "While anti-abortion activists seek to complicate the conditions under which a pregnant person must be offered abortion care, EMTALA [[link removed]] specifically defines “emergency medical condition” to include any situation “placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy.”

AFJ Statement: [link removed]

Thursday brought the big show: Trump v. United States . And if you’re asking yourself, “ Which Trump case?”— well, that’s understandable. As of March 12, 2024, there were 91 criminal charges [[link removed]] against Donald Trump.

The arguments before the Supreme Court on Thursday were about just which of these 91 charges can proceed to trial. Why is this a question? Trump claims he has blanket immunity for acts committed in office. Ergo, the justices are grappling with the question of whether and when a former president can be criminally prosecuted.

The catch: By taking this case, the Supreme Court forced the lower courts to put Trump’s criminal trials on pause [[link removed]] so that these cases cannot be resolved before the 2024 election.

The Really, Really Good News

The Biden Administration announced a terrific new slate of nominees [[link removed]] on Wednesday morning. By the numbers? Seven women, four of whom are already judges, four of whom are people of color, and six of whom will bring professional diversity to the federal bench. Brief bios for those six follow.
Judge Michelle Court, nominated to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, is a Black woman who has served as a judge in Los Angeles since 2012. Judge Court has been recognized for her pre-judicial legal career in plaintiffs’ side work, including class actions, around issues including housing, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and other civil rights matters—as well as for providing legal services to low-income individuals.

Judge Anne Hwang , nominated to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, is an Asian American woman who has served as a judge in Los Angeles since 2019. Prior, Judge Hwang was a Deputy Federal Public Defender at the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Central District of California then Chief Deputy in that office.

Judge Cynthia Venezuela Dixon , nominated to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, has served as a California State Bar Court judge in Los Angeles since 2016. A Latina, her pre-judicial legal career included five years as Criminal Justice Act Supervising Attorney for the Central District of California and five years as the Head of National Litigation for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

Judge Sarah Netburn , nominated to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, has been a U.S. Magistrate Judge in that district since 2012. Before that, Judge Netburn was Chief Counsel to the Office of Pro Se Litigation for S.D.N.Y. She also spent several years as a commercial and civil rights litigator at a firm.

Stacey Neumann , nominated to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine, spent the last decade practicing employment, criminal defense, and civil rights law. Notably, she led work into collegiate disciplinary processes surrounding Title IX investigations. Previously, she served at the Vermont Office of the Defender General.

Danna Jackson , nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Montana, is Native American and has spent her career practicing Indian and environmental law. With deep roots in her state and diverse experiences in those two areas of law, Jackson has most recently served as Tribal Attorney for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.

The Not-So-Long Wait

June is looming and Alliance for Justice — and the nation — awaits decisions in a number of key cases from this SCOTUS term. To learn more about these cases, check out our 2023-2024 SCOTUS Term Preview [[link removed]].

As always, you can find AFJ’s statements on key legal developments [[link removed]] and our blog [[link removed]] , covering issues and cases as well as advice and guidance from Bolder Advocacy [[link removed]] , on our site.

Not yet receiving AFJ Insider? Sign up to join us here [[link removed]].

Donate today to help us keep up The Rush. [[link removed]]

[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
[link removed]
www.afj.org
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe: [link removed] .
Alliance for Justice
11 Dupont Circle NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036
United States