The Supreme Court on Monday morning denied review in several notable cases, including cases involving voting rights, the environment, and a trademark dispute involving a company founded by NBA superstar LeBron James. It also asked for the federal government’s views in challenges to a state bar association’s allocation of leadership positions and an Oregon reporting requirement for prescription drug makers.
The announcements came as part of a list of orders released from the justices’ June 18 conference. The justices will meet for another conference – the final regularly scheduled conference before their summer recess – on Thursday, June 25. The court is likely to release orders from that conference on Monday, June 29, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.
The court denied review without comment in several noteworthy cases:
- RMS of Georgia v. EPA, a challenge to an EPA rule governing the phasedown of hydrofluorocarbons, the common refrigerants used in air conditioners and refrigerators.
- Arkansas United v. Thurston, in which the court had been asked to decide whether private individuals can enforce Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which allows voters to receive help if they are blind, disabled, or cannot read or write; it arises as part of a challenge to a state law that bars anyone other than election officials from helping more than six voters.
- Game Plan v. Uninterrupted IP, a dispute over the rights to the phrase “More Than an Athlete,” between Game Plan, a Maryland charity, and Uninterrupted IP, a media company co-founded by LeBron James. The court denied review in this case without requiring Uninterrupted IP, which won in the lower court, to file a response, suggesting that it was not seriously considering the petition for review.
Also on Monday the court called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Saadeh v. New Jersey State Bar Association, a challenge by a lawyer who describes himself as “a Palestinian and Muslim leader in the state bar” to the bar association's practice of reserving leadership positions for members of specific minority groups – positions, he says, for which he is not eligible.
A state appeals court upheld the practice under the First Amendment. “Compelling the Association to alter or eliminate its program to ensure diversity in its leadership … would significantly burden the expression of its views,” the lower court wrote.
Saadeh came to the Supreme Court in February, asking the justices to weigh in. “Illegal discrimination,” he told them, “does not become a constitutional right when the discriminator discriminates in the name of ‘diversity.’”
Opposing review, the bar association argued that Saadeh does not have a legal right to sue, known as standing, and it questioned the premise of his argument, telling the justices that the bar association’s “leadership-selection process has changed. Now, every at-large seat is open through multiple paths.” But in any event, it concluded, the lower court’s decision is correct.
In Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. O’Day, the justices also asked the solicitor general for the government’s views on a challenge by a pharmaceutical trade group to the constitutionality of an Oregon law requiring prescription drug makers to report information about some prescription drug prices to the state, which will generally post it on a website.
There is no deadline for the solicitor general to file his briefs in response to the court’s requests.
The court did not act on several high-profile petitions for review that it considered for the first time last week. Those petitions included:
- A trio of cases challenging voting restrictions in Arizona, including a requirement of proof of citizenship to vote for president or by mail. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit upheld a lower-court ruling that struck down the restrictions.
- A case about whether parents have a right to challenge laws in Washington State that allow runaway teens to receive mental health care and treatment (including “as to ‘gender transitions’”) at licensed shelters without parental consent.
