Skip to main content

Docket Deep Dives

Description 

The docket deep dive allows attendees to explore one of three concurrent panels that align with their particular interests. The panel offerings this year will be Employment Law, Civil Rights Litigation, and Criminal Law. 

Materials for the Employment Law Panel 

Pending Cases 

 

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia 
  • Description: In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, an art professor and a women’s basketball coach at two public universities in Georgia alleged that they had been victims of sex discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit rejected their claims, concluding that the language of Title IX does not indicate that employees, rather than students, can bring lawsuits under Title IX. Now at the Supreme Court, the Justices will decide whether Title IX provides employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment.
  • Reading Materials: 

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC

  • Description: In 2015, the Department of Labor (DOL) launched an investigation into Sun Valley Orchards, a New Jersey farm that hires seasonal workers through the H-2A visa program, and found that Sun Valley breached its contract by providing infested housing, failing to provide required kitchen access, and firing workers before their contracts ended. The DOL used its own administrative law judges to order Sun Valley to pay over $550,000 in civil penalties and back wages, but Sun Valley challenged the government, arguing that Article III of the Constitution and the H-2A program statute itself require a federal court, rather than an executive agency, to decide cases involving monetary remedies for contract violations. The Supreme Court will decide whether the DOL may use its own administrative proceedings to collect money from employers who violate their work contracts.
  • Reading Materials: 

Materials for the Civil Rights Litigation Panel 

Pending Cases 

 

Nielsen v. Watanabe
  • Description: After a prison riot fight, federal detainee Kekai Watanabe complained to correctional officers of pain and asked to see medical staff. Francis Nielsen, a staff nurse at the facility, denied his request to go to the hospital. Months later, doctors diagnosed Watanabe with a broken coccyx and he filed a lawsuit against Nielsen in his personal capacity for violating Watanabe’s Eighth Amendment rights by denying him adequate medical care. The district court dismissed Watanabe’s complaint, holding that his claim arose in a new Bivens context distinct from Carlson v. Green because he had access to an alternative administrative remedy that the Court had not considered in Carlson: the Bureau of Prisons’ Administrative Remedy Program. The 9th Circuit disagreed, and the Supreme Court will decide whether recognizing a Bivens cause of action in this case was erroneous.
  • Reading Materials: 
St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy 
  • Description: St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy challenges a Colorado universal preschool program (UPK), which provides funding to families to send their children to the “preschool of their choice–public, private, or faith-based.” But the program contains a caveat: to participate in the program, preschools must provide services regardless of gender identity, sexual orientation, and religious affiliation. Petitioner is a Catholic preschool that is barred from participating in the UPK because its teachings conflict with the equal opportunity mandate. The Court will decide: (1) whether proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith requires a showing of unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct, and (2) whether Carson v. Makin displaces the rule of Smith only where the government explicitly excludes religious individuals and institutions.
  • Reading Materials: 
Maxwell v. Dinis 
  • Description: In 2014, a New Jersey federal jury convicted William Maxwell and sentenced him to 20 years in prison. In 2020, Maxwell asked prison officials to transfer him to a halfway house or home confinement under the First Step Act’s earned time credit provisions, which require the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to apply credits prisoners earn through participation in rehabilitation programs toward earlier placement in pre-release custody. The BOP ignored his First Step Act arguments and denied his request. After pushing through the administrative grievance process unsuccessfully, Maxwell filed a federal habeas petition seeking the transfer. The district court dismissed Maxwell’s petition, ruling he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on his First Step Act claim. The 5th Circuit affirmed the dismissal on separate grounds that because a favorable ruling would not automatically accelerate Maxwell’s release from prison, a civil rights lawsuit–not a habeas petition–was the only proper vehicle for his claim. The Supreme Court will take up the issue of whether a claim regarding application of time credits under the First Step Act can be brought in a habeas petition.
  • Reading Materials: 

Case Law  

 

Landor v. LDOC (2026) First Choice Women’s Resource Center v. Platkin (2026) Chiles v. Salazar (2026) Zorn v. Linton (2026)

Materials for the Criminal Law Panel 

Pending Cases 

 

Jouppi v. Alaska 
  • Description: Jouppi v. Alaska involves the attempted forfeiture of a $95,000 airplane by the State of Alaska. Here, Ken Jouppi, a bush pilot, was scheduled to fly a passenger from Fairbanks to the village of Beaver. Hidden in the passenger’s luggage, and unbeknownst to Jouppi, were two cases of Budweiser beer and four six-packs. Before take off, state troopers searched Jouppi’s plane and found the beer. Jouppi was ultimately convicted of a misdemeanor, sentenced to three days in jail, and compelled to pay a $1,500 fine plus forfeit his airplane. Jouppi argued that maintaining the forfeiture would violate the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, but the Supreme Court of Alaska disagreed. Now at the Supreme Court, the Justices will determine whether this fine contravenes the Excessive Fines Clause, which holds that fines “must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.” More specifically, the Court will determine whether lower courts may consider the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract or in consideration of the specific defendant’s wrongdoing.
  • Reading Materials: 

Beaird v. United States

  • Description: In Beaird v. United States, the Supreme Court will consider whether Stinson v. United States (1993) still correctly states the rule for deference that courts must give the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
  • Reading Materials: 

Case Law 

 

Barrett v. United States (2026) Ellinberg v. United States (2026) Case v. Montana (2026) Fernandez v. United States (2026) Rutherford v. United States (2026) Hunter v. United States (2026) Chatrie v. United States (2026)