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.

Pulsifer v. United States (October 2) - Federal Criminal Law; Whether a defendant satisfies the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 in order to qualify for the federal drug-sentencing “safety valve” provision so long as he does not have (a) more than four criminal history points, (b) a three-point offense, and (c) a two-point offense, or whether the defendant satisfies the criteria so long as he does not have (a), (b), or (c).
CFPB v. Community Financial Servs. Ass'n of America, Ltd. (October 3) - Constitutional Law, Appropriations; Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (October 4) - Constitutional Law, Americans with Disabilities Act; Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.
Murray v. UBS Securities LLC (October 10) - Labor Law, Sarbanes Oxley Act; Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC (October 10) - Admiralty; Whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (October 11) - Election Law; Whether the district court erred when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze South Carolina Congressional District 1 and the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent. Additionally, the court's handling of the alternative-map requirement, its treatment of the relationship between race and politics, the assessment of racial predominance in District 1, and the consideration of intentional discrimination are all under scrutiny.

Featuring:

Karen Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLC
Brian Johnson, Managing Director, Banking Supervision and Regulation Group, Patomak Global Partners
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Research Fellow, Charles Koch Institute
Moderator: Amanda Salz, Associate, Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius LLP