The High Court Report

Oral Argument: Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety | Case No. 20-603 | Date Argued: 3/29/2022 | Date Decided: 6/29/2022


Listen Later

Torres v. Texas Dept. of Public Safety | Case No. 20-603 | Date Argued: 3/29/2022 | Date Decided: 6/29/2022

Background: In the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), Congress gave the over 19 million military servicemembers — including over 800,000 who work for state and local government employers — a cause of action to remedy adverse employment actions taken because of their military service. It enacted USERRA pursuant to its constitutional War Powers, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cls. 11-16, recognizing that unremedied employment discrimination by state employers based on military service could interfere with the nation's "ability to provide for a strong national defense." H.R. Rep. No. 105-448, at 5 (1998). USERRA's cause of action against state employers may be pursued only in state courts. In a sharply divided decision that conflicts with the Constitution's text, structure, and history, the court below, a Texas intermediate appellate court with jurisdiction over more than 2 million Texas citizens, held that USERRA's cause of action is unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to authorize lawsuits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its War Powers.

Question Presented: Whether Congress has the power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its War Powers.

Holding: By ratifying the Constitution, the States agreed their sovereignty would yield to the national power to raise and support the Armed Forces. Congress may exercise this power to authorize private damages suits against nonconsenting States, as in USERRA.

Result: Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED.

Voting Breakdown: 5-4. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh joined. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

For Petitioner: Andrew T. Tutt, Washington, D.C.; and Christopher G. Michel, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For Respondent: Judd E. Stone, II, Solicitor General, Austin, Tex.

...more
View all episodesView all episodes
Download on the App Store

The High Court ReportBy SCOTUS Oral Arguments

  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3
  • 4.3

4.3

6 ratings


More shows like The High Court Report

View all
The NPR Politics Podcast by NPR

The NPR Politics Podcast

25,874 Listeners

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts by Slate Podcasts

Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts

3,528 Listeners

Bloomberg Law by Bloomberg

Bloomberg Law

372 Listeners

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke by The Civitas Institute at the University of Texas at Austin

Law Talk With Epstein, Yoo & Cooke

695 Listeners

We the People by National Constitution Center

We the People

1,118 Listeners

The Fifth Column by Kmele Foster, Michael Moynihan, and Matt Welch

The Fifth Column

2,890 Listeners

The Lawfare Podcast by The Lawfare Institute

The Lawfare Podcast

6,295 Listeners

The Daily by The New York Times

The Daily

112,617 Listeners

Stay Tuned with Preet by Preet Bharara

Stay Tuned with Preet

32,371 Listeners

Today, Explained by Vox

Today, Explained

10,236 Listeners

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat by New York Times Opinion

Interesting Times with Ross Douthat

7,068 Listeners

Strict Scrutiny by Crooked Media

Strict Scrutiny

5,769 Listeners

Advisory Opinions by The Dispatch

Advisory Opinions

3,882 Listeners

The Ezra Klein Show by New York Times Opinion

The Ezra Klein Show

16,056 Listeners

Divided Argument by Will Baude, Dan Epps

Divided Argument

737 Listeners