This is Amicus, a law review on civic media.
My name is Jim Santel.
I'm your host for this broadcast, this podcast, and honored once again that you've chosen to spend some time in exploration with me of these major civic events in the area of rule of law and also in the area of administration of government and the pursuit of justice.
This edition of Amicus, a law review, no exception to that commission.
We're going to be spending most of our time in this broadcast talking about, once again, the United States Supreme Court.
Why?
Because we're on the cusp of the start of the new term of the United States Supreme Court, beginning as they always do on the first Monday of October with a whole new group of cases.
They've identified about 25, maybe even 26 cases now in this new term.
And it kicks off on Monday of this coming week.
with oral arguments.
We're going to talk about the four different oral arguments that are on the docket of this United States Supreme Court coming up just in the coming week.
I'll give you some sense of what those cases are all about.
And I'm just going to spend some time chatting with you about some of the major cases beyond those that were going to be on the docket for this coming week.
major cases that we probably will be talking about again in the spring and summer and maybe even next year at this time as the court addresses major issues in the area of firearms and juries and registration to vote and also the free exercise clause under the First Amendment.
Lots and lots of different issues already on the docket of the Supreme Court.
I'll give you some sense
of what those cases look like, those four or so among about 25 or 26 cases, which the Supreme Court has already granted, Sir Sharrari, that again is the argument, that's the notion that the Supreme Court should take these cases for review from the lower courts or from the state courts.
We'll talk about those particular pieces of litigation headed toward the Supreme Court.
We're going to begin this broadcast by giving you some updates on some of those civics issues that are out there, including the fact that the Supreme Court continues to invoke its emergency application doctrine and its docket in particular.
We called the shadow docket as do many others.
We have spoken in the past about how the Supreme Court, for example, just last week, allowed this expansive voter screening tool ahead of the midterms, the Supreme Court ruling in particular,
that the administration can in fact, deploy an expansive online system that brings together things like citizenship information and social security numbers and other sensitive data on millions of Americans, including to allow the states to hunt that system for ineligible voters.
It is not mandatory, but it is one of those systems that could result in the purging of large numbers of ballot voters in state roles if states choose to
Pursuit and ahead of the midterm elections again the Supreme Court as you reported last week Doing that doing that based upon this emergency application to it And effectively giving the administration the authority to roll out this system to monitor citizenship status Well, just this past week the Supreme Court continues in its pursuit of its emergency docket
And let me tell you a little bit about what it decided in one major case involving, yes, once again, immigration in America.
The Supreme Court telling the administration this past week that it can, does have the authority to rapidly deport immigrants to countries other than their own, to places other than their countries of origin.
Again, another one page emergency ruling unsigned, giving no vote as to who voted as to what.
And although the justices cleared the way, at least for now, for the swift removals to continue deporting individuals to countries about which they know nothing, from which they have not come, and are not their countries of origin, significantly they also announced in the same breath that the High Court will take this up the overall issues and place it on its so-called merits docket, which is the subject, again, already of the
26 cases pending there, setting up a final ruling probably in May, June, perhaps even July of next year.
The decision to not only permit the administration to go ahead on this particular initiative, again, permitting the deportation of immigrants to countries other than their places of origin is a significant matter, not only in connection with the president's overall immigration initiatives, but also raises issues about human rights.
and sets us another major test about where the Supreme Court comes down on those issues.
We know well that this is a part of the president's overall immigration initiative, and we will certainly include coverage not only of the oral argument on the case as it goes from the shadow docket to the merits docket in the weeks and months ahead, but playing the other immigration cases on the docket of the Supreme Court coming up.
all of that to lead into the decisions being made still by the Supreme Court about the cases on that docket.
They are still granting, again, what is called certiorari, that is the writ, that is the command of the lower court to bring forth those cases so that they can review those and render decisions about whether or not the lower courts are accurate, right, wrong, indifferent on the particular decision.
And so even as the Supreme Court is granting the capacity of the administration to engage in these rapid third country deportations for now in any event and scheduling that on for a merits review, Supreme Court also agreed just this past week to review the Trump administration's policy of indefinitely detaining immigrants who crossed the border illegally years ago.
And so once again, signaling that the court is weighing in on major pieces of President Trump's immigration policies.
As this new term begins, the policy, the policy once again, that is the decision of the administration pursuant to this rule to detain indefinitely immigrants who cross the border illegally.
is and is a departure from past practices of prior administrations when immigrants in that status were generally allowed an opportunity to seek release after a hearing before a judge basic due process.
The justices in this matter previously announced that they would fast track the separate case testing the administration's deportation to countries where they have no ties.
That's the first matter that we talked about.
This is now related to it but different.
And in both cases, they'll be considering the legality of some of the most controversial aspects of the president's overall immigration initiatives.
And as we go forward, this case will also be a part of our initiative.
One of the cases is a matter for considerable attention by the Supreme Court.
just because it focuses upon human lives, right?
And determines whether or not they can be deported again to countries other than their own.
This second one raises the issue about whether or not people who are detained after they have illegally entered the country, whether they have a right to a hearing in front of a judge, basic due process, both of those, both of those keys to the president's overall immigration plans.
We know that the Supreme Court is continuing to add more cases to that group of 25 or 26.
And we will, as before, continue to report on all of that.
So let's begin beyond that immediate news of Justice past week, the court's review and initial consideration of some of these immigration cases.
Let's talk about some of the major cases in that group of 25 or 26.
that are certainly going to animate discussion in America, grabbing our attention.
And these, again, in no particular order, I've selected four from the group of 26 that includes issues that we have talked about before on this broadcast, on this podcast.
All of them are significant.
Let's begin with firearms, with guns, again, as we have
chatted about in recent times.
We know that the Supreme Court has focused a lot upon firearms in its recent history.
We know in particular this case called Heller from many years ago authored by Antonin Scalia.
It was the first time in our nation's history that the Supreme Court acknowledged a constitutional right, a right of constitutional dimension under the Second Amendment to possess and use and transfer weapons.
We had never ever interpreted
the Second Amendment in that way until that recent decision.
Heller gave rise to a number of other cases, including cases called Bruin, B-R-U-E-N, comes out of the state of New York.
And in that case, once again, the Supreme Court struck down a restriction on firearms in America.
And Bruin, they also went on to say that the only way that you can support
restrictions on firearms, conditions of sale and possession, those kinds of things is whether you can find a tradition or history in which our nation or the particular locality has previous
You've got to look back in time to determine we've ever done this before.
If you cannot find that antecedent, you can't do it now.
That's the rule in Bruin, plainly a subject of a lot of disagreement among not only the members of the Supreme Court, but also the population generally, determining whether or not our present law should be premised upon a look backward or whether they should be premised upon a living constitution and the circumstances of
of today.
And so in recent years, for example, we have seen the Supreme Court applying Heller, applying Bruin, and on one side of the docket saying, yes, indeed, the ATF can impose certain requirements with respect to so-called ghost guns, these pieces of firearms that are brought through the mail and sent through the mail for assembly at home.
You can in fact regulate that, the Supreme Court said.
even though we have not got a lot of precedent for doing that.
They also said, for example, that a particular defendant, an individual, can be restricted from owning, operating, using, selling a firearm if he or she is subject to a domestic violence restraining order.
Those are restrictions on firearms use and possession that they upheld.
Last term, as we reported on this broadcast, the Supreme Court went not so much in the opposite direction, but delivered two opinions in decisions and cases that, from my perspective, do not provide a whole lot of change in our practical laws.
But you may recall one of them saying that if you're a casual user of marijuana, the law that otherwise prohibits people who are addicted to illegal drugs from holding weapons, that can't be applied with respect to a particular person.
whose habit and whose addiction is not clear, but is perhaps a regular user of marijuana.
That was one case.
The other one coming out of Hawaii you may remember was this case involving the decision about whether or not as you enter into private property, in which there's nonetheless a public use and a public invitation.
Can the owner restrict you?
Can the owner restrict you from possessing and carrying weapons?
Do you have to get permission?
from the owner to carry weapons on.
And I think once again, the Supreme Court said, yes, you do have to get that permission, a win for gun rights advocates, but not so much in terms of practicality, just because as a regular and routine matter, the prohibitions on firearm possession in those public and private locations can in fact be enforced
if someone posts a sign that says no firearms here.
And so both of those cases, while they're important, and they reaffirm the basic right of Americans under Heller and under Bruin to possess weapons, certainly victories for the firearms industry and for gun rights advocates, nonetheless, not major changes.
That may change dramatically with what the Supreme Court has decided to review.
We have talked about this before.
Let's talk about a case coming out of our own
7th Circuit in part, and that includes Cook County just to the south of us here in Wisconsin.
The case is Vera Montes, V-I-R-A-M-O-N-T-E-S versus Cook County.
There is a parallel case coming out of Connecticut.
and Sandy Hook.
Why?
Because in both of those locations, in both of those locations, government officials have banned AR-15s, automatic weapons, on the basis that those are weapons of war, no need for their domestic use, their possession, their use, their carrying in communities.
And the Supreme Court has decided to review both of those bans, both of those restrictions in those consolidated cases.
consolidated Vera Montes with a case called Grant versus Higgins.
That's the one in the East Coast.
A lawsuit in Cook County, Illinois giving rise to the 7th Circuit case in our area is now before the Supreme Court.
Unlike past years, it now means the 7th Circuit has at least one, if not two cases that are going to be very high visibility in this term.
The claim is by those people who are challenging these bans, both in Cook County and also in Connecticut, is that these bans on these high capacity weapons, automatic rifles, AR-15s, weapons of war, those bans violate the Second Amendment and also the Fourteenth Amendment.
How does that work?
Well, the allegation is that the amendments
The first one, protecting the right to keep and bear firearms.
Again, under, as we know, the Supreme Court precedent of Heller.
The other applies to the right to states and local governments.
That's the 14th Amendment.
So together, the Second Amendment, 14th Amendment rights before the court, challenging whether or not governments, local institutions, whether state legislatures, can lawfully ban the possession, the use, the sale, the transfer,
of AR-15s, of automatic weapons, or whether under this regime of Heller and Bruin that is protected constitutionally, the common thread between all of these cases in Bruin is that in order to justify restrictions which these bans undeniably are, you have to look back in history, you have to look back in time, find some tradition or history.
that supports the fact, the historical reference, that we've done this before.
And if you have done it before, then there's support to do it again.
That's the lesson in brewing.
Here it is fascinating because on the one hand, we have never had a situation where in our past, our long past, we have had references to AR-15s that are relatively
modern weapon.
They are weapons of war that have been around for a relatively long period of time, but they certainly do not go back to the founding of our nation, constitutional times.
And so some will say that we've never done this before.
We cannot do it again because there's not that historical antecedent when it comes to these high capacity weapons.
It turns out that as many of you know that back in the 90s, the Congress and the president did put in place.
a ban on these high capacity weapons did prevent your use, your carry, or transfer your sale of automatic weapons.
And so there is precedent legislatively for doing this.
It is certainly significant, I will mention in the same breath, that when we had that 10 year ban here in America, the number of mass shootings using high capacity weapons, the number of mass shootings overall went down.
And so it is a clear
Experiment, if you will, but also an example of how these kinds of limitations, rational, reasonable limitations on gun use, do keep us safer and more secure.
This is one that back in the 90s showed us just that.
It also, for purposes of this present review of current bands, harkening back to the 1990s, demonstrates that we've done this before.
And so that certainly is going to be a major argument for the Supreme Court when they address this matter.
It is scheduled right now for oral argument.
That is the combined case of Vera Montes and Grant.
We'll call it Vera Montes Grant on December 7th.
Also, again, an important day in our nation's history as you recognize, on that day, they will be having oral argument on this question of whether or not the Constitution guarantees all people.
the right to possess and carry automatic weapons, not only in the home but in the streets of America.
A stunning review coming up in early December based once again upon their historical references and their establishment of this notion that in order to pursue these, you have to have that basis.
I remind you right now that this is amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations, the podcast stations of civic media, as we go on to another case, another case also pending before the United States Supreme Court.
And this case is called Republican National Committee, RNC versus Mi Familia Vota, M-I, New Word Familia, F-A-M-I-L-I-A Vota, against the
administration's backdrop, the Trump administration's White House.
It's attempts to vigorously tighten voting rules about which we have spoken a lot.
You have read a lot about this.
You know a lot about it in anticipation, not just of the upcoming midterms in about 30 days, but also about the future of voting in America.
The Supreme Court now deciding on December 8th, the day after the oral argument in Villa Montes, December 8th, the day right after that, they're going to have an oral argument.
Weighing in on whether Arizona, the state of Arizona, can lawfully, constitutionally require its residents to provide proof of citizenship when filling out their state registration form.
Can the state do that as a prerequisite to establishing the right to vote there and filling out the form?
Now here in Wisconsin, we do require that.
The issue now up before the Arizona
the national Supreme Court, but premised upon what the Arizona legislature has done.
The case is a result coming up from the lower courts, result of a lawsuit.
It was filed by me, Familia Vota, and a group of coalition of some election reform and voting rights groups.
And they were challenging two Arizona laws, these legislative enactments by the Arizona legislature.
They're called HB2492 and HB2243.
There will probably be references to them when the December 8th oral argument comes up.
On the basis that they violate several laws that are designed to protect voters' access.
the capacity of voters to ensure that they have the right to vote on the ballot and to prevent discriminatory voting practices.
That's the basis.
That's the invocation of these groups challenging those laws that require that Arizona residents provide proof of citizenship.
What are those laws?
Well, they include the National Voter Registration Act.
That governs voter registration procedures generally.
It also includes the civil rights laws and the Civil Rights Act.
which bars states from imposing rules deemed immaterial, irrelevant, insignificant, or unnecessary to voter qualification.
So there's that law also.
And then, of course, there's the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which, as you know, guarantees generally equal treatment under the law.
Invoking all of those provisions, statutory and constitutional, the challengers to what's going on in Arizona
The legislation there that requires its residents provide proof of citizenship.
That's the basis upon which they're challenging it.
And in December 8th, the Supreme Court will entertain oral argument on that matter.
And that will be, again, much in the public's attention and our attention as well during the course of the broadcast, the podcast after that time.
We will also comment on the result of that oral argument.
Perhaps even give you some tea leaves about how we anticipate those oral arguments being resolved ultimately.
There is no date, no date yet set for a particular oral argument in yet another case called KION, K-I-A-N versus Florida.
It's a third of a number of cases that I'm identifying here.
It carries significant implications for the criminal law.
these other matters, playing these civil in nature, the Supreme Court on its docket routinely does address a few cases involving criminal law, both related to federal and state prosecutions.
And in particular, the court's going to consider whether the federal constitution under the Constitution of the United States of America, states are required to use 12 person juries in serious felony cases.
Let me repeat that.
The question is whether or not states
are required by the United States Constitution to use 12 person juries and to do that in serious felony cases.
We know in misdemeanors, there are different kinds of rules.
Typically, prosecution rules in the federal system do not require grand jury returns.
But here, the question is, under serious felony prosecutions, must states establish a 12 person jury, plainly also requiring that those juries be unanimous?
under our rules and regulations.
As we go forward here in Keon, I'll describe this further reminder once again that this is amicus, a law review on the broadcast stations of civic media.
delighted once again that you're a part of this discussion as we talk about these cases before the Supreme Court.
In Keon, a petitioner named Hamid Keon, a Florida-based chiropractor was tried and convicted by a six-person jury on five counts of practicing chiropractic medicine without his license and was therefore suspended.
Keon appealed that conviction.
arguing that the six-person jury in that criminal matter was inappropriate and that it did not pass constitutional muster.
When it comes to cases that carry significant penalties, he contends the Sixth Amendment requires a full 12-person jury.
That's the question that's before the court at this time.
The Keon petitions the Supreme Court.
to overturn a 1970 precedent, a case called Williams versus Florida.
Six person juries could, in fact, do in fact satisfy the Sixth Amendment jury protection guarantee.
And he may find some of the justices sympathetic to that argument, including Justice Neil Gorsuch, interestingly, was argued that that previous case was wrongly decided.
So a lot of history on this and a lot of reason to believe that maybe.
just maybe the Supreme Court will announce something related to the ways in which the courts at the state level can find an individual guilty based only upon a 12-person unanimous jury.
The rules there will plainly have an impact around the nation, including here in the state of Wisconsin, and other states will watch that equally carefully, and will also watch a fourth case, among many others,
This case is scheduled for oral argument on November 3rd, November 3rd, and it is called St.
Mary Catholic Parish versus Roy.
We have talked about this particular matter previously.
It is another First Amendment case, and in particular, it raises issues of free exercise and also arguably, depending upon how you interpret this and classify it, separation of church and state.
The First Amendment again requiring that the government, the Constitution requiring that the government, the Congress, the government generally cannot impose any restrictions on the free exercise of religion in America.
We will let you pursue your religious beliefs as you like.
At the same time, the First Amendment saying the Congress and government cannot impose, cannot establish any religion, and typically that means money.
that your federal and state tax dollars cannot be used to support in any way religious institutions.
And that includes religious institutions of an academic nature, schools that are religious in nature, regardless of what the particular faith affiliation may be.
That has been the traditional view of the separation of church and state under the First Amendment.
It is now going to be tested
under both those theories, but especially under the free exercise clause.
This dispute, as we talked previously, arose in 2003 after, here we go, once again, the state of Colorado barred the schools from participating in a program, and in particular, it's a universal preschool program.
unless they agreed to a certain non-discrimination practices in the state of Colorado.
We have also talked about those in other settings.
Those requirements that participating preschools and other entities in Colorado provide equal enrollment opportunities regardless of, among other things, religious affiliation.
sexual orientation and gender identity.
Let me repeat that once again.
The opportunity to engage with the state and have these access to monies there requires that the particular institutions provide equal employment and equal enrollment opportunities regardless of religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
You can see well where this is going and how this is set up.
The petitioners, they're the Archdiocese of Denver, two Catholic parishes, and two parents sued the state of Colorado, sued the state in September of 2023, and they're arguing that the state is discriminated against them because of their religious beliefs.
They are plainly invoking the change in the way that the Supreme Court has interpreted
the separation of church and state and the free exercise clause, we recall from previous discussions that it used to be all about entanglements, whether the state was unduly entangled with religion, religion unduly entangled with the state in a way that would leave all of us uncomfortable in understanding that separation, that there would be no establishment of religion by a state.
And we know that in recent times,
the Supreme Court, and particularly the Chief Justice, has pretty much abandoned that entanglement theory in favor of a discrimination theory, asking if the decision not to include a particular religious entity, including an academic entity, whether that decision is discriminating against religion.
And many people, including dissenters in some of these cases, have noted that
under any situation where you make choices, you're making discriminatory decisions, not with a capital D, but with a small D, choosing one as opposed to another.
And if that is the standard, then the faith-based entities, the religious organizations that are the plaintiffs in these cases will always win.
The plaintiffs in particular, in this case coming out of Colorado, argue that they should be able to participate in the state-funded, tax-dollar-funded program.
while considering the sexual orientation and gender identity of potential students in admissions decisions.
So they want both of those things.
They want to be able to get the state funding and the support that comes from tax dollars there, but also being able to consider when it comes to enrollment, the sexual orientation and gender identity of potential students who are coming into the schools.
And in recent years, of course,
The issues related to admissions have loomed large in the Supreme Court.
We know the Supreme Court with respect to admissions.
And colleges has weighed in major decision of a number of years ago.
This now back again with respect to admissions, but here packaged inside the First Amendment.
And in particular, the free exercise clause.
Is this a violation by the state of Colorado of the Catholic faith?
and of the archdiocese and of these two Catholic priests and others, are we violating their right to exercise their faith as they like by prohibiting these particular preschool programs from participating in the financial support that would otherwise be available to them if they did not ask about and did not discriminate based upon sexual orientation and gender identity?
It's a lot.
It's a lot to look at, but we also know that the Supreme Court
Fascinated, as it has been in the past, fascinated still this term by religious cases.
This is going to be a big one.
Again, coming up for oral argument as soon as November 3rd, we'll get a sense of how the Supreme Court may review this.
The case is St.
Mary, Catholic Parish versus Roy, coming up before the Supreme Court in this term.
Those are four among the many cases, 25 already on the docket of the Supreme Court.
We know that more of those cases will be added.
And in the coming term, beginning this coming Monday, October 5th, continuing on Tuesday, October 6th, and Wednesday, October 7th.
The United States Supreme Court is going to be entertaining four oral arguments in particular.
Let me tell you a little bit more about them and some of them also significant among the overall 26 or so.
I'll be relatively brief as to each one of those.
First, we've got a case involving the Clean Air Act.
It is an environmental case, although it has to do with the interplay between federal law and state law.
The case is Suncore Energy versus County Commissioners of Boulder County involving the Clean Air Act.
The question is whether or not federal law precludes, prevents state law claims, seeking relief for injuries that were supposedly allegedly caused by the effects of interstate international greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate.
What is the relationship between state law and federal law?
Does federal law basically preempt a state prosecution alleging these things under state theories and the city of Boulder in particular, arguing that federal law should not preempt their pursuit of these state claims against
the ExxonMobil and three Suncor Energy entities, they allege that the decades-long production and promotion and refining of marketing and sale of fossil fuels there drove climate change and caused some serious harm.
That's their standing to people in Boulder and beyond.
The case once again, Suncor Energy.
It is again on the docket of the Supreme Court.
beginning on Monday, October 5th, an environmental case determining where you can sue under our federal law.
And so we also have other cases that are going to be coming up before the Supreme Court this very term.
Here's another one.
This is called Johnson versus United States Congress, an interesting name for a case.
We have an individual who's actually suing the Congress.
The issue concerns something called the Veterans Judicial Review Act.
And the question here is whether or not
a Veterans Judicial Review Act that law strips the district court, the federal district courts of jurisdiction recognized by the court in another case called Johnson versus Robinson back in 1974 to hear challenges to the constitutionalality of acts of Congress affecting veterans benefits.
Again, there's a lot.
And here on Amicus Law Review, here on the broadcast stations of Civic Media,
which we are on right now in which we are going to continue to review these cases.
All of that, all of that is going to be the subject of review before the Supreme Court coming up on Monday, October 5th.
A veteran's rights case, that is also significant, not only for veterans, but our understanding of the role of the Congress in enacting legislation and the possibility that the Supreme Court will overturn
and redefine the way in which Congress acts with respect to veterans' rights that also very significant.
A third matter coming up before the Supreme Court just this week, this is on Tuesday, October 6th.
It's called Anderson versus Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee.
The question here is involving a matter under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Yes, you know it as ERISA.
And the question is whether or not for claims predicated on fund underperformance, underperforming funds, pleading that an Orissa fiduciary failed to use the care and the attention, the skill, the prudence, the diligence under the circumstances required, breached Orissa, violated Orissa's duty of prudence when investing plan assets.
Again, there's a lot there.
Basically, it's whether or not the investors
Of plan monies acted properly and whether their failure to do so constitutes a violation of Orissa and a playing the a meaningful benchmark is the way that the language under Orissa is identified a major case involving Orissa and employment rights, but also in particular
fund performance, the capacity, the requirement imposed upon people who are managing these funds to exercise care in managing in the way that produces a good result for the owners of those funds.
That case, once again, Anderson versus Intel Corporation.
It's on the docket for review on the 6th of October.
And finally, this week, we also have a case called Department of the Air Force versus Pruta High
and that is spelled P-R-U-T-E-H-I-G-U-A-H-I-H-A-N.
It is scheduled for oral argument on the 7th.
This case concerns something called the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, RICRA, and the National Environment Policy Act.
You probably know that one a little bit more familiar with that.
That's NEPA.
The question in this particular case is whether the federal government's submission to a state or territory regulator of an application to review a RICRA permit is a final agency action that is therefore immediately reviewable under the courts under something called the Administrative Procedures Act.
All of these cases, all of these cases are pretty wonky.
And even as they describe what the questions are in all of them,
Your mind may in fact wander away from this specific focus here.
It is a determination about the involvement of these major federal statutes in the environmental area.
And what is a final action?
What is a final determination such that those decisions are appealable then into the federal courts under the Administrative Procedure Act?
It is a procedural case, but it's also another case involving
environmental issues, significant in that the U.S.
Air Force here is a part of this particular case.
It operates the Anderson Air Force Base, the northern tip of Guam, and it is a coastal area that sits above Guam's sole source drinking water aquifer, and therefore serves as a habitat for endangered sea turtles.
Since 1982, the Air Force has disposed of hazardous waste in this area.
Some munitions
through open burning and open detonation operations.
And that method involves igniting and exploding ordinances in open air.
And so that's where the statutes come in.
RICRA, the Air Force under that statute, has to obtain a permit every three years from the Guam Environmental Protection Agency, which has administered RICRA there on the island since 1986.
And here's the rub.
The Air Force has renewed that permit on a triennial circle.
with a cycle without interruption.
But when its most recent permit application approached, the Air Force submitted a renewal application again without first preparing any environmental review under NEPA, the National Environmental Protection Agency.
It is that failure to prepare that report.
You've seen this a lot in these kinds of environmental cases that prompts the allegation here that NEPA was violated.
that the particular procedural process here under Ricker was violated, and therefore the Air Force would not have the capacity if that notion is embraced to go ahead and continue with these kinds of disposals there on Guam.
The parties here contesting the application, in other words,
federal statutes in a way that plainly does enforce environmental requirements there on Guam.
The Air Force, as I indicated, conducted no environmental impact statement, no environmental assessment, and offered no public comment opportunity, you know, probably from our previous discussions of environmental cases, that that is a fairly fundamental requirement under the law.
and that those failures are the basis for these lawsuits.
Meanwhile, under RICRA's automatic extension provision, the Air Force continued these operations under its 2018 permit while the renewal remained pending.
That's also part of the issue, the timing of all of this.
The petitioners, the challengers here filed this lawsuit in the district of Guam.
in January of 22, alleging that the Air Force has violated the laws.
And this renewal application process does not get them out from under responsibility.
And the Air Force maintaining that the plaintiffs here lack standing, that there's no final agency action, and that there's a failure to state a claim here, all of this, all of this being brought again by a number of people, including Prutei, P-U-P-R-U-T-E-H-I,
Go on, G-U-A-H-A-N, in a case that's scheduled before the Supreme Court on October 7th.
All of that coming up this week, you can listen to these oral arguments live by going online, pulling down the Supreme Court oral argument tab.
You can listen to the live, you can listen to them once they're recorded after the oral arguments themselves.
That's on the docket for the Supreme Court this coming week.
We will talk about more of these cases and others here on Amicus Law Review on the broadcast and podcast stations of Civic Media for now.
Thank you for being a part of this exposition here on Amicus Law Review.