Send us a text

Send us a text

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-7_8m58.pdf

Send us a text

In 2023, Tennessee joined the growing number of States restricting sex transition treatments for minors by enacting the Prohibition on Medical Procedures Performed on Minors Related to Sexual Identity, Senate Bill 1 (SB1). SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from prescribing, administering, or dispensing puberty blockers or hormones to any minor for the purpose of (1) enabling the minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s biological sex, or (2) treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s biological sex and asserted identity. At the same time, SB1 permits a healthcare provider to administer puberty blockers or hormones to treat a minor’s congenital defect, precocious puberty, disease, or physical injury. Three transgender minors, their parents, and a doctor challenged SB1 under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court partially enjoined SB1, finding that transgender individuals constitute a quasi-suspect class, that SB1 discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status, and that SB1 was unlikely to survive intermediate scrutiny. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the law did not trigger heightened scrutiny and satisfied rational basis review. This Court granted certiorari to decide whether SB1 violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Held: Tennessee’s law prohibiting certain medical treatments for transgender minors is not subject to heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and satisfies rational basis review.

Send us a text

Rivers v. Guerrero

Petitioner Danny Rivers was convicted in Texas state court of continuous sexual abuse of a child and related charges. After unsuccessfully seeking direct appeal and state habeas relief, Rivers filed his first federal habeas petition under 28 U. S. C. §2254 in August 2017, asserting claims of prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other constitutional violations. The District Court denied the petition in September 2018, and Rivers appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which granted a certificate of appealability on his ineffective-assistance claim in July 2020. While his appeal was pending, Rivers obtained his trial counsel’s client file, which contained a state investigator’s report that he believed was exculpatory. After the Fifth Circuit denied his request to supplement the record on appeal, Rivers filed a second §2254 petition in the District Court based on this newly discovered evidence. The District Court classified this second-in-time filing as a “second or successive” habeas application under §2244(b) and transferred it to the Fifth Circuit for authorization to file. Rivers appealed the transfer order, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that the fact that Rivers’s first petition was still on appeal did not permit him to circumvent the requirements for successive petitions under §2244 as to his second filing.

Held: Once a district court enters its judgment with respect to a firstfiled habeas petition, a second-in-time filing qualifies as a “second or successive application” properly subject to the requirements of §2244(b). Pp. 5–14.

Read by Jeff Barnum.

Send us a text

Commissioner v. Zuch

This case involves the jurisdiction of the United States Tax Court over appeals from collection due process hearings when there is no longer an ongoing levy. The dispute here began in 2012, when Jennifer Zuch and her then-husband Patrick Gennardo each filed an untimely 2010 federal tax return. Gennardo subsequently submitted an offer in compromise to resolve outstanding tax liabilities. This offer implicated $50,000 in estimated tax payments that the couple had previously sent to the IRS; following the offer, the IRS applied these payments to Gennardo’s account. For her part, Zuch later amended her 2010 tax return to report additional income, which resulted in an additional $28,000 in taxes due. But Zuch maintained that the IRS should have credited the couple’s $50,000 payment to her account, entitling her to a $22,000 refund. The IRS disagreed and sought to collect her unpaid taxes by placing a levy on her property pursuant to its authority under 26 U. S. C. §6331(a). Zuch requested a collection due process hearing to contest the levy. The appeals officer rejected Zuch’s argument about the misapplied $50,000 tax payment and issued a Notice of Determination sustaining the levy action under §6330(c)(3). Zuch then appealed to the Tax Court under §6330(d)(1). During the multi-year proceedings before the agency and the Tax Court that followed, Zuch filed several annual tax returns showing overpayments. Each time, the IRS applied these overpayments to her outstanding 2010 tax liability rather than issuing refunds. Once Zuch’s liability reached zero, the IRS moved to dismiss the Tax Court proceeding as moot, arguing that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction because the IRS no longer had a basis to levy on Zuch’s property. The Tax Court agreed. But on appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the dismissal, holding that the IRS’s abandonment of the levy did not moot the Tax Court proceedings.

Held: The Tax Court lacks jurisdiction under §6330 to resolve disputes between a taxpayer and the IRS when the IRS is no longer pursuing a levy.

Send us a text

Parrish v. United States

Federal inmate Donte Parrish alleges that he was placed in restrictive segregated confinement for 23 months based on his suspected involvement in another inmate’s death. After a hearing officer cleared him of wrongdoing, Parrish filed suit in Federal District Court seeking damages for his time in segregated confinement. The District Court dismissed his case on March 23, 2020, holding that some claims were untimely and others unexhausted. When the court’s order reached the federal prison two weeks later, Parrish was no longer there, having been transferred to a different facility. Parrish received the dismissal order three months after it was issued and promptly filed a notice of appeal, explaining his delayed receipt. The Fourth Circuit recognized that Parrish’s notice of appeal came well after the 60-day appeal period for suits against the United States, so it construed Parrish’s filing as a motion to reopen the time to appeal under 28 U. S. C. §2107(c). On remand, the District Court granted reopening for 14 days. Parrish did not file a second notice of appeal. Although both Parrish and the United States argued that the original notice of appeal was sufficient, the Fourth Circuit held that Parrish’s failure to file a new notice of appeal within the reopened appeal period deprived the court of jurisdiction.

Held: A litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.

Read by Jeff Barnum.

Send us a text

Soto v. United States

The Barring Act, 31 U. S. C. §3702, establishes default settlement procedures for claims against the Government and subjects most claims to a 6-year limitations period. However, the Act includes an exception: If “another law” confers authority to settle a claim against the Government, that law displaces the Barring Act’s settlement mechanism, including its limitations period. §3702(a). In 2002, Congress enacted a statute providing “combat-related special compensation” (CRSC) to qualifying veterans who have suffered combat-related disabilities. 10 U. S. C. §1413a. Under federal law, retired veterans generally must waive a portion of their military retirement pay to receive Veterans Affairs (VA) disability benefits, but the CRSC statute allows combatdisabled retirees to receive special compensation up to the amount of waived retired pay. Petitioner Simon Soto served in the Marine Corps from 2000 to 2006, including two tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom. He was medically retired in 2006 and later received a 100-percent disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder from the VA. In 2016, Soto applied for CRSC payments. The Secretary of the Navy approved his application but limited retroactive compensation to six years, citing the Barring Act’s limitations period. Soto filed a class-action lawsuit arguing that the Barring Act’s 6-year limitations period does not apply to CRSC claims because the CRSC statute constitutes “another law” that provides its own settlement mechanism. The District Court granted summary judgment for the class, but the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the CRSC statute does not explicitly grant settlement authority and therefore cannot displace the Barring Act.

Held: The CRSC statute confers authority to settle CRSC claims and thus displaces the Barring Act’s settlement procedures and limitations period.

Read by Jeff Barnum.

Send us a text