Supreme Court Relists: A Breakdown of Recent Cases
The Supreme Court’s ongoing review of certiorari petitions includes several significant cases that have been relisted for discussion. This article provides a detailed overview of two new relists that captivate legal attention this week, as well as a look at some returning cases that raise pressing constitutional questions.
Overview of New Relists
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist
In this case, Texas residents Sarah and Grant Palmquist allege that their son developed autism linked to heavy metals found in Hain Celestial’s Earth’s Best™ baby food, sold through Whole Foods. The Palmquists initially filed their lawsuit under Texas state law, leading Hain Celestial to claim that the inclusion of Whole Foods was a tactic to circumvent federal diversity jurisdiction.
The district court agreed with Hain Celestial and dismissed Whole Foods from the case. After a jury trial, Hain won a Rule 50(a) motion, due to a lack of evidence connecting the baby food to the child’s condition. However, the 5th Circuit Court re-evaluated the dismissal, asserting that the Palmquists presented a valid claim for breach of an express warranty, which warranted reinstatement of Whole Foods as a defendant.
Key issues in this case revolve around whether a district court must vacate final judgments of diverse parties when non-diverse parties are incorrectly dismissed during removal and whether the addition of facts post-removal can establish jurisdictional grounds.
GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles
This case addresses the legality of an eviction moratorium that the City of Los Angeles implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The moratorium barred landlords from evicting tenants unable to pay rent, drawing a lawsuit from property owners who argue that the city effectively seized their properties without compensation, violating the Constitution’s takings clause.
While the 9th Circuit upheld the dismissal of the case citing voluntary tenant agreements, GHP Management challenges this interpretation. They argue that the moratorium imposes restrictions on owners’ rights to evict, thereby constituting a physical taking as defined by the Supreme Court in previous rulings.
Examining Returning Relists
In addition to the new cases, the Supreme Court is revisiting several high-profile relists that also offer significant implications:
- Apache Stronghold v. United States (24-291): Investigates the extent to which government actions burden religious exercise under the RFRA when they involve the destruction of sacred sites.
- Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island (24-131): Questions whether firearm possession bans infringe upon Second Amendment rights and the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.
- First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin (24-781): Concerns jurisdictional challenges in federal court when state investigatory demands may chill First Amendment rights.
- Snope v. Brown (24-203): Evaluates the constitutional validity of Maryland’s ban on semiautomatic rifles.
- L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts (24-410): Addresses First Amendment protections related to student expression and its perceived disruption.
Conclusion
As the Supreme Court prepares for its upcoming conference, the outcome of these cases could shape legal precedents significantly. The Hain Celestial and GHP Management cases specifically will provide clarity on issues involving jurisdiction and property rights amidst evolving public health considerations.
The next conference will reveal whether any of these matters will advance to oral arguments in the fall, continuing to highlight the dynamic nature of federal jurisprudence.
