Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (June 13–June 19, 2022), Part 1

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (June 13–June 19, 2022), Part 1

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(June 13–June 19, 2022), Part 1
June 21, 2022
The federal courts issue hundreds of decisions every week in cases involving diverse legal disputes. This
Sidebar series selects decisions from the past week that may be of particular interest to federal lawmakers,
focusing on orders and decisions of the Supreme Court and precedential decisions of the courts of appeals
for the thirteen federal circuits. Selected cases typically involve the interpretation or validity of federal
statutes and regulations, or constitutional issues relevant to Congress’s lawmaking and oversight
functions.
Some of the cases identified in this Sidebar, or the legal questions they address, are examined in other
CRS general distribution products. Members of Congress and congressional staff may click here to
subscribe to the CRS Legal Update and receive regular notifications of new products and upcoming
seminars by CRS attorneys.
This week’s Congressional Court Watcher is divided into two parts because of the number of notable
decisions issued over the past week. This Legal Sidebar discusses Supreme Court activity during the
week of June 13 to June 19, 2022, while a companion Legal Sidebar addresses decisions of the U.S.
courts of appeals from that period.
Decisions of the Supreme Court
Last week, the Supreme Court issued decisions in 10 cases for which it heard oral arguments:
 Arbitration: The Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act—which permits parties to
contract for arbitration of disputes and, in so doing, forfeit their rights to bring suit over
matters covered by the agreement—partially preempts a California law that allows
employees to raise certain representative claims, on behalf of both themselves and other
workers, against their employer. The Court ruled that the California statute was
preempted to the extent it did not allow splitting of claims raised in the worker’s
individual capacity and potentially subject to arbitration, and those nonindividual claims
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10765
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
raised on behalf of others, which may be brought in court (Viking River Cruises, Inc. v.
Moriana).
 Civil Procedure: The Court decided in an 8-1 ruling that the reference to “mistake” in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) includes an error of law. Because Rule 60(b)(1)
provides for relief from a final judgment on the basis of legal error, the Court held, a
motion raising such a claim must be filed within the one-year time period specified in
that rule. In this case, that meant that the petitioner, who sought to reopen proceedings to
vacate his criminal sentence, had not made a timely motion (Kemp v. United States).
 Civil Procedure: A federal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1782, allows federal district courts to
order discovery for use in proceedings before a “foreign or international tribunal.” The
Court unanimously held that this statute applies only to proceeding before “governmental
or intergovernmental bodies,” and that neither of the foreign arbitration panels in the
cases before it met that standard (ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.).
 Health: In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court struck down Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) rules for 2018 and 2019 reimbursement rates for hospitals
providing certain outpatient prescription drugs to Medicare patients. HHS had reduced
the reimbursement rates for hospitals participating in the “340B” program, but not non-
340B hospitals, on account of hospitals participating in the 340B program receiving drug
price discounts from drug manufacturers. The Court held that the governing statute did
not preclude judicial review of the reimbursement rates, and that HHS could not vary the
reimbursement rates only for 340B hospitals without first surveying hospitals’ acquisition
costs of covered outpatient drugs (American Hospital Ass’n v. Becerra).
 Immigration: In a 6-3 decision in consolidated cases, the Court held that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(f) bars lower courts from entering class-wide injunctions ordering federal officials
to take or refrain from taking action when carrying out certain Immigration and
Nationality Act provisions governing the detention and removal of aliens. Injunctive
relief, according to the Court, may only be granted to a particular alien against whom
removal proceedings have been initiated (Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez; Garland v. Flores
Tejada).
 Immigration: In a decision joined in full by eight Justices, the Court held that 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a)(6), which governs the detention of aliens awaiting removal, does not compel
the government to offer bond hearings to those held for six months or more after their
final removal order, in which the government bears the burden of proving continued
detention is justified due to the alien’s flight risk or danger to the community. In
reversing the lower court’s decision that bond hearings were statutorily required, the
Court did not decide whether bond hearings might be constitutionally necessary in cases
of prolonged detention, leaving it to the lower court to consider the issue on remand in
the first instance (Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez).
 Indian Law: In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the prosecution of a defendant under the
Major Crimes Act for the same conduct for which he was previously tried in a Court of
Indian Offenses. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Indian Offenses had applied
tribal law, while the defendant’s subsequent prosecution was based on federal law.
Because the two offenses were proscribed by separate sovereigns, the second prosecution
did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Constitution (Denezpi v. United States).
 Indian Law: In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that a tribe barred by federal law from
conducting gaming activities “prohibited by” Texas law is only barred from conducting
gaming activities that are banned outright, rather than merely regulated by Texas (Ysleta
del Sur Pueblo v. Texas).

Congressional Research Service
3

 International Law: The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction, as implemented by 22 U.S.C. § 9001, requires U.S. courts to provide for the
prompt return of a child wrongfully removed from his or her home country unless an
exception applies, including when there is “grave risk” that repatriation “would expose
the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable
situation.” The Court unanimously held that a court’s finding that a grave risk exists does
not categorically require the court to then consider whether ameliorative measures would
still enable the child’s return (Golan v. Saada).
 Veterans: By statute, a veteran can challenge the Department of Veterans Affairs’ denial
of a benefits claim when the decision was based on “clear and unmistakable error.” In a
6-3 decision, the Court held that this standard does not allow a veteran to challenge a
benefit denial premised on an agency legal interpretation that was later deemed invalid
under the plain text of the governing statute (George v. McDonough).
The Court also dismissed an earlier grant of certiorari:
 Immigration: The Supreme Court dismissed as improvidently granted certiorari in a case
from the Ninth Circuit involving several states’ attempt to intervene to defend a Trump-
era immigration rule that the Biden Administration no longer seeks to defend. The Court
had granted review only of the question as to whether the states may intervene to defend
a federal rule that the United States ceases to defend, not to consider the validity of the
underlying immigration rule (Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia
David Gunter
Deputy Assistant Director/ALD
Section Research Manager

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10765 · VERSION 1 · NEW