US Supreme Court announces January oral argument schedule, will hear issues of privilege, preemption and administrative procedure
MarkThomas / Pixabay
US Supreme Court announces January oral argument schedule, will hear issues of privilege, preemption and administrative procedure

The US Supreme Court Thursday released the list of oral arguments it will hear during the January 2023 session. The court will hear seven arguments in a session that begins on January 9, 2023.

The court will first hear arguments in the cases of In re Grand Jury and Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) on January 9. In re Grand Jury asks the court to consider whether attorney-client privilege shields communications from grand jury subpoenas. Specifically, the court will determine whether attorney-client privilege covers communications involving both legal and non-legal advice when the communication was created for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Ohio Adjutant General’s Department asks the court to consider whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 empowers the FLRA to regulate labor practices in state militias, like the Ohio National Guard.

On January 10, the court will hear arguments in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Here the question is one of tort law–the court must consider whether the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) preempts state law. If so, the tort claim must be litigated before the National Labor Relations Board, not a state court. On January 11, the court will hear arguments in Financial Oversight Board v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo (CPI). Through oral arguments, the court will determine whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act’s general grant of jurisdiction to the US federal courts preempts a Puerto Rican governmental body’s sovereign authority.

The court will hear arguments in Santos-Zacaria v. Garland and Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States on January 17. In Santos-Zacaria, the court will examine the appeals process for administrative immigration proceedings. Santos-Zacaria argues that decisions from the Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative body, should be appealable to federal courts, outside of the administrative procedure. Then, in Turkiye Halk Bankasi the court will determine whether the US can bring criminal charges against a Turkish government-controlled bank.

Wrapping up the January session, oral arguments for Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools will take place on January 18. The case centers around a student’s claim that his educational experience was negatively impacted by the school district’s failure to provide him a sign language interpreter, in violation of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). The case is similar to Santos-Zacaria in that it deals with administrative procedures. Specifically, the question is whether Perez can bring his claim in federal court, outside of the administrative procedures prescribed by the ADA.