Overview of Recent Relists

The Supreme Court continues to engage with relisted petitions, showcasing a tendency to elevate certain cases to granted status. Notably, the court has agreed to review The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, which addresses a significant lawsuit involving parents who are attempting to hold a baby-food manufacturer liable for their child’s autism.

Case Details: The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist

In this case, the justices will determine if a federal district court’s final judgment favoring Hain Celestial must be entirely vacated upon remand to state court, following the dismissal of another defendant, Whole Foods, from the proceedings.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court opted not to review an additional issue regarding diversity jurisdiction in this case, specifically whether a plaintiff can amend a complaint with new allegations after a case has transitioned to federal court.

Upcoming Conference and Relisted Cases

This week’s conference features 95 petitions, with one receiving a second review: Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc. dba Cover Girls. This case examines when the statute of limitations starts for claims alleging a “pattern or practice” of racial discrimination.

Highlights from Nicholson’s Case

Chanel Nicholson, an African-American dancer, filed a lawsuit against multiple Houston clubs under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, claiming racial discrimination in hiring practices. She asserts a consistent policy restricting the number of Black dancers employed per shift, impacting her opportunities between 2014 and 2021.

Despite filing her case in August 2021, the district court dismissed it, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations commenced in 2014. This decision was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which stated that the continuing violations doctrine applies only to hostile workplace claims, thus barring Nicholson’s action.

Arguments for Review and Opposition

Nicholson, initially representing herself, later secured legal counsel and contends that there’s a division among the circuits regarding the applicability of the continuing violations doctrine in such discrimination claims.

The clubs, opposing the review, argue that the 2021 incidents cited by Nicholson are merely extensions of earlier discriminatory practices and do not qualify as separate violations under the continuing violations doctrine.

Additional Notable Relists

Several cases are noted for relist consideration, including:

• Apache Stronghold v. United States, 24-291: Pertains to whether the government substantially restricts religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by destroying sacred sites.
• Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 24-131: Involves questions of Second Amendment violations regarding ammunition-feeding devices.
• Snope v. Brown, 24-203: Explores the constitutionality of Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles.
• L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, 24-410: Investigates the presumption of disruption from student speech related to personal identity.
• GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, California, 24-435: Questions if eviction moratoriums violate property owners’ rights.
• First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin, 24-781: Focuses on jurisdiction issues related to federal and state courts adjudicating First Amendment rights.