US Supreme Court Takes Up More Than a Dozen New Cases

Alongside a photo of herself giving the middle finger, she wrote “Fuck school, fuck softball, fuck cheer, fuck everything.”

When her coaches took notice of the post, B.L. was promptly suspended from the junior varsity squad, sparking a lawsuit from her parents. 

A federal judge ruled in 2019 that her speech was protected by the First Amendment, and the Third Circuit affirmed that decision in June. 

The Supreme Court will need to look back at the 1969 landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, which holds that public school officials “may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.” 

Further, they will determine whether that case applies to the regulation of speech conducted while off-campus. 

The high court on Friday also decided to take up a case centered around Gregory Greer, who was charged in Florida with possessing a firearm while being a convicted felon.

Greer was sentenced to 120 months in prison and later requested that the Eleventh Circuit vacate his conviction or grant him a new trial. 

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Rehaif v. United States that in order to prosecute a felon for possessing a weapon, “the government must prove not only that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm, but also that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.”

Greer brought his challenge under the Rehaif decision, claiming that it “made plain that errors occurred when his indictment failed to allege, his jury was not instructed to find, and the government was not required to prove that he knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearm.”

The 11th Circuit denied his claims.

Greer contends that the 11th Circuit erred because it did not just use the evidence introduced at trial, but also considered his five prior felony convictions and his presentence investigation report. 

The Supreme Court will decide whether a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals may review matters outside the trial record to determine whether an error “affected a defendant’s substantial rights or impacted the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial.”

In USA v. Palomar-Santiago, prosecutors are appealing the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of charges against Refugio Palomar-Santiago, a Mexican national and lawful U.S. permanent resident who re-entered the country after being deported for driving under the influence.

The Ninth Circuit held that because Palomar-Santiago was wrongfully deported, he could not be charged with wrongfully re-entering the country. 

In its petition for certification, the government argued that the appellate court wrongly found that Palomar-Santiago was excused from proving that he had exhausted his administrative remedies and been denied judicial review. 

Another case, Sanchez v. Wolf, involves the Temporary Protected Status sometimes granted to immigrants from countries suffering humanitarian crises. 

The appellants, a married El Salvadoran couple who gained TPS status in 2001 after an earthquake in the Central American country, seek to overturn a Third Circuit finding that they are ineligible for permanent-resident status because they were not inspected and admitted at the time of their original entry.

That process typically takes place at an embassy or consulate in an immigrant’s home country, the couple argued, making the requirement “especially problematic for TPS recipients” for whom remaining in their home countries poses a safety risk. 

Attorney Jaime Aparisi wrote that the court’s interpretation of the phrase “inspected and admitted” conflicted with that used by the Sixth and Ninth Circuits and lined up with one from the 11th Circuit. The Department of Homeland Security successfully argued for a strict interpretation of the phrase in the Third Circuit case, while other courts have held that the process for receiving the status qualifies as inspection and admission. 

“Immigration’s been taking the most restrictive position they can on this issue since the '90s,” Aparisi said in an interview. That position, he said, has forced immigrants fleeing violence in their home countries to return to those countries in order to adjust their immigration status, including through marriage or employer sponsorship. 

“I think it’s ridiculous for the government to make people who have TPS to return to countries who are under civil strife,” he added.

The justices will also review whether refineries can qualify for renewable fuel rule exemptions without having received uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions since 2011.  

The Renewable Fuel Standard requires transportation fuel refiners to blend increasing amounts of renewable fuels into their products each year. 

To mitigate harm that this mandate could have on small refineries, Congress allows small refineries facing “disproportionate economic hardship” to petition the Environmental Protection Agency for an exemption “at any time.” 

“The Tenth Circuit, however, interpreted this provision to add an additional requirement, namely that a small refinery may obtain an exemption only when it has received uninterrupted, continuous extensions of the exemption for every year since 2011 — an interpretation that excludes nearly all small refineries,” wrote the attorneys for four refineries that sued the Renewable Fuels Association in an underlying case.

Another case granted by justices involves whether three drug offenders who were sentenced in 2010 have “covered offenses” under the First Step Act.

Specific patent defenses also will be examined in Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. Cytyc Surgical Products, which the court also granted.

Follow @@ErikaKate5

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit