Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco

Last updated

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued February 23, 2022
Decided June 15, 2022
Full case nameArizona, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
Docket no. 20-1775
Citations596 U.S. ___ ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Brett Kavanaugh  · Amy Coney Barrett
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceRoberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of states to defend federal regulations in court.

Contents

Background

The Trump administration issued the public charge rule in 2019. The rule was intended to prevent recent non-citizen immigrants to the United States from becoming eligible for public assistance. Before the regulation took effect, various courts enjoined its enforcement. Lawsuits were filed in California, Illinois, New York, Maryland, and other states. The Supreme Court stayed nationwide injunctions issued by district courts in New York and Illinois in January and February 2020. In December 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held by a 2–1 vote that the public charge rule was unlawful. Certiorari was granted in a case reviewing the similar judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in February 2021. That case, Department of Homeland Security v. New York, was dismissed by an agreement between the Biden administration and the plaintiffs in March 2021. A coalition of states led by Arizona attempted to intervene in defense of the rule in multiple courts across the country and were unsuccessful each time. That coalition then appealed the Ninth Circuit case to the Supreme Court. [1]

Supreme Court

Certiorari was granted in the case on October 29, 2021. The court heard oral arguments on February 23, 2022. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich argued for the petitioners. On June 15, 2022, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition as improvidently granted. Chief Justice John Roberts concurred.

See also

Related Research Articles

2005 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005 until October 1, 2006.

2001 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002.

<i>Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management</i> Lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, was a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Karen Golinski, challenged the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined, for the purposes of federal law, marriage as being between one man and one woman, and spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex.

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), is a 2012-term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona's unique voter registration requirements, including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Arizona's registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case involving eminent domain and labor relations. In its decision, the Court held that a regulation made pursuant to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Act that required agricultural employers to allow labor organizers to regularly access their property for the purposes of union recruitment constituted a per se taking under the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the regulation may not be enforced unless “just compensation” is provided to the employers.

2021 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States

The 2021 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 4, 2021, and will conclude October 2, 2022. The table below illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.

American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to administrative law. The case centered on a rule from the Department of Health and Human Services which reduced reimbursement rates for certain hospitals. Several hospital associations and hospitals affected by the rule sued HHS, alleging that it exceeded its statutory authority. The court was tasked with deciding if the rule was a reasonable interpretation of the law, and if the statute blocked judicial review of the rule in the first place.

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case related to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.

Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction council, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.

Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether and, if so, when federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court held that the "look through" approach established by the Court's decision in Vaden v. Discover Bank "does not apply to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA."

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, in which the Court unanimously held that cargo loaders and ramp supervisors employed at airports are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to Miranda v. Arizona. The case reviewed whether being read the Miranda warning upon arrest by law enforcement is a constitutional right.

Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law.

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross is a pending United States Supreme Court case related to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Affordable Care Act.

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the jurisdiction of federal courts over immigration appeals.

Garland v. Gonzalez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

References

  1. Howe, Amy (October 29, 2021). "Justices agree to review EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved October 29, 2021.