Bar Exams in the Pandemic JURIST Digital Scholars
Supreme Court hears arguments on blood test refusals, overtime pay
Supreme Court hears arguments on blood test refusals, overtime pay

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] heard oral arguments [day call, PDF] in two cases Wednesday. In Birchfield v. North Dakota [transcript, PDF] the court heard arguments [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] on whether a state can criminalize a refusal to submit to a warrantless chemical test regarding blood alcohol content. This case arose [Oyez summary] when Birchfield was arrested for drunk driving after failing a breathalizer test but refused to allow a blood test. He was criminally charged for this refusal under a North Dakota law [text, PDF], and sentenced to 30 days in jail. He appealed his case to the North Dakota Supreme Court, which affirmed [opinion, PDF] his criminal judgment.

The court also heard arguments in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro [transcript, PDF] to determine whether [SCOTUSblog backgrounder] service advisors at car dealerships are entitled to the overtime pay requirements in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) [text]. This case arose [Oyez summary] when Navarro, a service agent at a Mercedes-Benz car dealership who greeted customers and assessed their needs, sued his employer for failing to provide overtime pay for hours worked past 40 per week. According to the FLSA, service agents are not eligible for overtime pay. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] held [opinion, PDF] that Navarro could in fact receive overtime payment, reversing the lower court’s decision.