re: EPA Verdict

quote:

---

if congress didn't authorize board of ed to initiate CRT/wokism, they can't, its done, if the congress did not specify laws on guns, ATF can NOT make them up, if congress didn't pass laws on drugs and their use, bye bye fda over reach continue in that line of thought, thats how big this is

---

Nope. You are wrong. The next session of the court proves it.

The court did not say these agencies have to stop working, the court said in this one case they went too far, they did not go so far as to say a board of education cannot rule on shool libraries or something.

Look at the cases in the next term a ton TON of them are about similar cases and NOTHING indicates that this ruling today makes them moot.


OCTOBER TERM 2022
View this list sorted by case name.

October Sitting
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21-454 [Arg: 10.3.2022]
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cochran, No. 21-1239
Issue(s): Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to hear a suit in which the respondent in an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding, based on an alleged constitutional defect in the statutory provisions that govern the removal of the administrative law judge who will conduct the proceeding.

Arellano v. McDonough, No. 21-432 [Arg: 10.4.2022]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling from Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs applies to the one-year statutory deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, whether the government has rebutted that presumption; and (2) whether, if 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to equitable tolling, this case should be remanded so the agency can consider the particular facts and circumstances in the first instance.

Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 21-1168 [Arg: 10.11.2022]
Issue(s): Whether the due process clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business in the state.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21-468 [Arg: 10.11.2022]
Issue(s): (1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in the Supreme Court’s decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a claim under Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.

Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt, No. 21-984 [Arg: 10.12.2022]
Issue(s): Whether a supervisor making over $200,000 each year is entitled to overtime pay because the standalone regulatory exemption set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.601 remains subject to the detailed requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 when determining whether highly compensated supervisors are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirements.

Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 21-86
Issue(s): Whether Congress impliedly stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Federal Trade Commission’s structure, procedures, and existence by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to “affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside” the commission’s cease-and-desist orders.

Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski, No. 21-806
Issue(s): (1) Whether, in light of compelling historical evidence to the contrary, the Supreme Court should reexamine its holding that spending clause legislation gives rise to privately enforceable rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) whether, assuming spending clause statutes ever give rise to private rights enforceable via Section 1983, the Federal Nursing Home Amendments Act of 1987’s transfer and medication rules do so.

Haaland v. Brackeen, No. 21-376
Issue(s): (1) Whether various provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 — namely, the minimum standards of Section 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f); the placement-preference provisions of Section 1915(a) and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions of Sections 1915(e) and 1951(a) — violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment; (2) whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge ICWA’s placement preferences for “other Indian families” and for “Indian foster home[s]”; and (3) whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and therefore consistent with equal protection.