Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.

Rico v. U.S. (November 3) - Fugitive-Tolling; Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
Hencely v. Fluor Corporation (November 4) - Federal Tort Claims Act;Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.
The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (November 4) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited v. Burton (November 5) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (November 5) - Tariffs, IEEPA; Issue (s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.
The GEO Group v. Menocal (November 10) - Sovereign Immunity; Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety (November 10) - Civil Rights; Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
Rutherford v. U.S. (November 12) - First Step Act; Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Fernandez v. U.S. (November 12) - Compassionate Release; Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Featuring:

Prof. Thomas C. Berg, James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of Law
Zac Morgan, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington Legal Foundation
Prof. Jacob Schuman, Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law
Prof. Erica Zunkel, Director of Clinical and Experiential Learning, Clinical Professor of Law, & Director of the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Clinic, University of Chicago Law School
(Moderator) Logan Spena, Legal Counsel, Center for Free Speech, Alliance Defending Freedom