Trips to the U.S. Supreme Court

Undergraduate Fellows at the Supreme Court

Fall 2019

Monday, December 9, 2019
James Madison Program Undergraduate Fellows visited the SCOTUS as guests of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch

10:00 a.m. (14 seats)
Cases: Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr Att’y Gen.
Ovalles v. Barr Att’y Gen.
Issues: (1) Whether a request for equitable tolling, as it applies to statutory motions to reopen, is judicially reviewable as a “question of law.” (2) Whether the criminal alien bar, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), tempered by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), prohibits a court from reviewing an agency decision finding that a movant lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes, notwithstanding the lack of a factual dispute.

11:00 a.m. (14 seats)
Case: Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
Issue: Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s time bar did not apply.

Spring 2019

Monday, April 22, 2019
20 James Madison Program Undergraduate Fellows visited the SCOTUS as guests of Chief Justice John Roberts

Case: Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media (10 seats)
Issues: (1) Whether the statutory term “confidential” in the Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 4 bears its ordinary meaning, thus requiring the government to withhold all “commercial or financial information” that is confidentially held and not publicly disseminated—regardless of whether a party establishes substantial competitive harm from disclosure—which would resolve at least five circuit splits; and (2) whether, in the alternative, if the Supreme Court retains the substantial-competitive-harm test, that test is satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st and 10th Circuits have held, or whether the party opposing disclosure must establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th and District of Columbia Circuits have held, and as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit required here.

Case: Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (10 seats)
Issue: Whether Title VII’s administrative-exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit, as three circuits have held, or a waivable claim-processing rule, as eight circuits have held.

Fall 2018

Tuesday, November 6, 2018
20 James Madison Program Undergraduate Fellows visited the SCOTUS as guests of Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch

Case: BNSF Railway Company v. Loos
Issue: Whether a railroad’s payment to an employee for time lost from work is subject to employment taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.