Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee

423

Per Curiam REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE et al. v.

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE et al. on application for stay No. 19A1016. Decided April 6, 2020 Wisconsin decided to proceed with primary elections scheduled for April 7, 2020, during the COVID–19 pandemic. In federal litigation challenging voting procedures, a Federal District Court extended the deadline for municipal clerks to receive absentee ballots from April 7, 2020, to April 13, 2020. Then, fve days before the scheduled election, the District Court unilaterally ordered that absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after election day be counted so long as they are received by April

13. Plaintiffs, in their preliminary injunction motions, did not ask the

District Court for this relief.

Held: The District Court's order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed to the extent it requires the State to count absentee ballots post- marked after April 7, 2020. The District Court, by enjoining enforce- ment of a state statutory requirement that ballots for primary election be mailed by voters and postmarked by election day, afforded relief not sought in preliminary injunction motions, and violated the principle that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter election rules on the eve of an election. See, e. g., Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (per curiam).

Preliminary injunction stayed in part.

Per Curiam.

The application for stay presented to Justice Kava- naugh and by him referred to the Court is granted. The District Court's order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed to the extent it requires the State to count absentee ballots postmarked after April 7, 2020.

Wisconsin has decided to proceed with the elections sched- uled for Tuesday, April 7. The wisdom of that decision is not the question before the Court. The question before the Court is a narrow, technical question about the absentee bal- lot process. In this Court, all agree that the deadline for the municipal clerks to receive absentee ballots has been ex- tended from Tuesday, April 7, to Monday, April 13. That extension, which is not challenged in this Court, has afforded

424

Per Curiam Wisconsin voters several extra days in which to mail their absentee ballots. The sole question before the Court is whether absentee ballots now must be mailed and post- marked by election day, Tuesday, April 7, as state law would necessarily require, or instead may be mailed and post- marked after election day, so long as they are received by Monday, April 13. Importantly, in their preliminary in- junction motions, the plaintiffs did not ask that the District Court allow ballots mailed and postmarked after election day, April 7, to be counted. That is a critical point in the case. Nonetheless, fve days before the scheduled election, the District Court unilaterally ordered that absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after election day, April 7, still be counted so long as they are received by April 13. Extending the date by which ballots may be cast by voters—not just received by the municipal clerks but cast by voters—for an additional six days after the scheduled election day funda- mentally alters the nature of the election. And again, the plaintiffs themselves did not even ask for that relief in their preliminary injunction motions. Our point is not that the argument is necessarily forfeited but that the plaintiffs themselves did not see the need to ask for such relief. By changing the election rules so close to the election date and by affording relief that the plaintiffs themselves did not ask for in their preliminary injunction motions, the District Court contravened this Court's precedents and erred by or- dering such relief. This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the elec- tion rules on the eve of an election. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam); Frank v. Walker, 574 U. S. 929 (2014); Veasey v. Perry, 574 U. S. 951 (2014).

The unusual nature of the District Court's order allowing ballots to be mailed and postmarked after election day is perhaps best demonstrated by the fact that the District Court had to issue a subsequent order enjoining the public release of any election results for six days after election day.

Cite as: 589 U. S. 423 (2020)

425

Per Curiam In doing so, the District Court in essence enjoined non- parties to this lawsuit. It is highly questionable, moreover, that this attempt to suppress disclosure of the election re- sults for six days after election day would work. And if any information were released during that time, that would gravely affect the integrity of the election process. The District Court's order suppressing disclosure of election re- sults showcases the unusual nature of the District Court's order allowing absentee ballots mailed and postmarked after election day to be counted. And all of that further under- scores the wisdom of the Purcell principle, which seeks to avoid this kind of judicially created confusion.

The dissent is quite wrong on several points. First, the dissent entirely disregards the critical point that the plain- tiffs themselves did not ask for this additional relief in their preliminary injunction motions. Second, the dissent con- tends that this Court should not intervene at this late date.

The Court would prefer not to do so, but when a lower court intervenes and alters the election rules so close to the elec- tion date, our precedents indicate that this Court, as appro- priate, should correct that error. Third, the dissent refers to voters who have not yet received their absentee ballots.

But even in an ordinary election, voters who request an ab- sentee ballot at the deadline for requesting ballots (which was this past Friday in this case) will usually receive their ballots on the day before or day of the election, which in this case would be today or tomorrow. The plaintiffs put for- ward no probative evidence in the District Court that these voters here would be in a substantially different position from late-requesting voters in other Wisconsin elections with respect to the timing of their receipt of absentee ballots. In that regard, it bears mention that absentee voting has been underway for many weeks, and 1.2 million Wisconsin voters have requested and have been sent their absentee ballots, which is about fve times the number of absentee ballots re- quested in the 2016 spring election. Fourth, the dissent's

426 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Per Curiam rhetoric is entirely misplaced and completely overlooks the fact that the deadline for receiving ballots was already ex- tended to accommodate Wisconsin voters, from April 7 to April 13. Again, that extension has the effect of extending the date for a voter to mail the ballot from, in effect, Satur- day, April 4, to Tuesday, April 7. That extension was de- signed to ensure that the voters of Wisconsin can cast their ballots and have their votes count. That is the relief that the plaintiffs actually requested in their preliminary injunc- tion motions. The District Court on its own ordered yet an additional extension, which would allow voters to mail their ballots after election day, which is extraordinary relief and would fundamentally alter the nature of the election by allowing voting for six additional days after the election.

Therefore, subject to any further alterations that the State may make to state law, in order to be counted in this election a voter's absentee ballot must be either (1) postmarked by election day, April 7, 2020, and received by April 13, 2020, at 4 p.m., or (2) hand delivered as provided under state law by April 7, 2020, at 8 p.m.

The Court's decision on the narrow question before the Court should not be viewed as expressing an opinion on the broader question whether to hold the election, or whether other reforms or modifcations in election proce- dures in light of COVID–19 are appropriate. That point cannot be stressed enough.

The stay is granted pending fnal disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cir- cuit and the timely fling and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. Should the petition for a writ of certio- rari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.

It is so ordered.

Cite as: 589 U. S. 423 (2020)

427

Ginsburg, J., dissenting Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Breyer, Jus- tice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan join, dissenting.

The District Court, acting in view of the dramatically evol- ving COVID–19 pandemic, entered a preliminary injunction to safeguard the availability of absentee voting in Wiscon- sin's spring election. This Court now intervenes at the elev- enth hour to prevent voters who have timely requested ab- sentee ballots from casting their votes. I would not disturb the District Court's disposition, which the Seventh Circuit allowed to stand.

Wisconsin's spring election is scheduled for tomor- row, Tuesday, April 7, 2020. At issue are the presiden- tial primaries, a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, three seats on the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, over 100 other judgeships, over 500 school board seats, and se- veral thousand other positions. Democratic National Com- mittee v. Bostelmann, 451 F. Supp. 3d 952, 959–960 (WD Wis. 2020).

In the weeks leading up to the election, the COVID–19 pandemic has become a “public health crisis.” Id., at 958.

As of April 2, Wisconsin had 1,550 confrmed cases of COVID–19 and 24 deaths attributable to the disease, “with evidence of increasing community spread.” Id., at 960. On March 24, the Governor ordered Wisconsinites to stay at home until April 24 to slow the spread of the disease.

Ibid.

Because gathering at the polling place now poses dire health risks, an unprecedented number of Wisconsin voters—at the encouragement of public offcials—have turned to voting absentee. Id., at 960–961. About one million more voters have requested absentee ballots in this election than in 2016. Ibid. Accommodating the

428 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Ginsburg, J., dissenting surge of absentee-ballot requests has heavily burdened elec- tion offcials, resulting in a severe backlog of ballots re- quested but not promptly mailed to voters. Id., at 961–962.

Several weeks ago, plaintiffs—comprising individual Wis- consin voters, community organizations, and the state and national Democratic parties—fled three lawsuits against members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.1 The District Court consolidated the suits on March 28. The plaintiffs sought several forms of relief, all aimed at easing the effects of the COVID–19 pandemic on the upcoming election.

After holding an evidentiary hearing, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction on April 2. As relevant here, the court concluded that the existing deadlines for ab- sentee voting would unconstitutionally burden Wisconsin cit- izens' right to vote. See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U. S. 428, 434 (1992); Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 789 (1983).

To alleviate that burden, the court entered a twofold remedy.

First, the District Court extended the deadline for voters to request absentee ballots from April 2 to April 3. Second, the District Court extended the deadline for election offcials to receive completed absentee ballots. Previously, Wiscon- sin law required that absentee ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day, April 7; under the preliminary injunction, the ballots would be accepted until 4 p.m. on April 13, re- gardless of the postmark date. The District Court also en- joined members of the Elections Commission and election inspectors from releasing any report of polling results before the new absentee-voting deadline, April 13.

1 The state and national Republican parties intervened as defendants.

The District Court denied intervention by the state legislature, which the Seventh Circuit later allowed.

Cite as: 589 U. S. 423 (2020)

429

Ginsburg, J., dissenting Although the members of the Wisconsin Elections Com- mission did not challenge the preliminary injunction, the in- tervening defendants applied to the Seventh Circuit for a partial stay. Of the twofold remedy just described, the stay applicants challenged only the second aspect, the extension of the deadline for returning absentee ballots. On April 3, the Seventh Circuit declined to modify the absentee-ballot deadline. The same applicants then sought a partial stay in this Court, which the Court today grants.

The Court's order requires absentee voters to postmark their ballots by election day, April 7—i. e., tomorrow—even if they did not receive their ballots by that date. That is a novel requirement. Recall that absentee ballots were origi- nally due back to election offcials on April 7, which the Dis- trict Court extended to April 13. Neither of those deadlines carried a postmark-by requirement.

While I do not doubt the good faith of my colleagues, the Court's order, I fear, will result in massive disen- franchisement. A voter cannot deliver for postmarking a ballot she has not received. Yet tens of thousands of voters who timely requested ballots are unlikely to receive them by April 7, the Court's postmark deadline. Rising concern about the COVID–19 pandemic has caused a late surge in absentee-ballot requests. 451 F. Supp. 3d, at 961–962. The Court's suggestion that the current situa- tion is not “substantially different” from “an ordinary elec- tion” boggles the mind. Ante, at 425. Some 150,000 requests for absentee ballots have been processed since Thursday, state records indicate.2 The surge in absentee- 2 See Wisconsin Elections Commission, Absentee Ballot Report, Apr. 2, 2020, https://elections.wi.gov/node/6806; Wisconsin Elections Commission, Absentee Ballot Report, Apr. 3, 2020, https://elections.wi.gov/node/6808; Wisconsin Elections Commission, Absentee Ballot Report, Apr. 4, 2020,

430 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Ginsburg, J., dissenting ballot requests has overwhelmed election offcials, who face a huge backlog in sending ballots. 451 F. Supp. 3d, at 957, 961–962, 967, 976–977. As of Sunday morning, 12,000 ballots reportedly had not yet been mailed out.3 It takes days for a mailed ballot to reach its recipient—the postal service recommends budgeting a week—even without ac- counting for pandemic-induced mail delays. Id., at 962. It is therefore likely that ballots mailed in recent days will not reach voters by tomorrow; for ballots not yet mailed, late arrival is all but certain.4 Under the District Court's order, an absentee voter who receives a ballot after tomorrow could still have voted, as long as she delivered it to election offcials by April 13. Now, under this Court's order, tens of thou- sands of absentee voters, unlikely to receive their ballots in time to cast them, will be left quite literally without a vote.

This Court's intervention is thus ill advised, especially so at this late hour. See Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4–5 (2006) (per curiam). Election offcials have spent the past few days establishing procedures and informing voters in ac- cordance with the District Court's deadline. For this Court https://elections.wi.gov/node/6814; Wisconsin Elections Commission, Ab- sentee Ballot Report, Apr. 5, 2020, https://elections.wi.gov/node/6815.

3 See Wisconsin Elections Commission, Absentee Ballot Report, Apr. 5, 2020, https://elections.wi.gov/index.php/node/6815.

4 See, e. g., Tr. 18–19 (Apr. 1, 2020) (testimony that mail delivery “can take up to a week” or longer, threatening “the opportunity for the voter to receive [the absentee] ballot by mail”); id., at 36 (testimony that the “transaction time from the time the clerk puts [an absentee ballot] in the mail to the voter receiving it could take up to a week”); id., at 40 (testimony agreeing that “there will be some people who request . . . [an] absentee ballot [on April 2] who will not be receiving it in time to put it in the mail by April 7th”); Brief for City of Green Bay as Amicus Curiae in No. 3:20–cv–00249 (WD Wis.), p. 5 (“[D]elays at the post of- fce are . . . affecting the speed with which voters receive their bal- lots . . . .”).

Cite as: 589 U. S. 423 (2020)

431

Ginsburg, J., dissenting to upend the process—a day before the April 7 postmark deadline—is sure to confound election offcials and voters.

What concerns could justify consequences so grave? The Court's order frst suggests a problem of forfeiture, noting that the plaintiffs' written preliminary-injunction motions did not ask that ballots postmarked after April 7 be counted.

But unheeded by the Court, although initially silent, the plaintiffs specifically requested that remedy at the preliminary-injunction hearing in view of the ever-increasing demand for absentee ballots. See Tr. 102–103 (Apr. 1, 2020).

Second, the Court's order cites Purcell, apparently skepti- cal of the District Court's intervention shortly before an elec- tion. Nevermind that the District Court was reacting to a grave, rapidly developing public health crisis. If proximity to the election counseled hesitation when the District Court acted several days ago, this Court's intervention today— even closer to the election—is all the more inappropriate.

Third, the Court notes that the District Court's order al- lowed absentee voters to cast ballots after election day. If a voter already in line by the poll's closing time can still vote, why should Wisconsin's absentee voters, already in line to receive ballots, be denied the franchise? According to the stay applicants, election-distorting gamesmanship might occur if ballots could be cast after initial results are pub- lished. But obviating that harm, the District Court en- joined the publication of election results before April 13, the deadline for returning absentee ballots, and the Wisconsin Elections Commission directed election offcials not to pub- lish results before that date.5 5 Memorandum from M. Wolfe, Administrator of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, to Wisconsin Municipal Clerks et al. (Apr. 3, 2020), https:// elections.wi.gov/sites/elections.wi.gov/files/2020-04/Clerk%20comm% 20re.%20court%20decisions%204.3.pdf.

432 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE

Ginsburg, J., dissenting The concerns advanced by the Court and the applicants pale in comparison to the risk that tens of thousands of vot- ers will be disenfranchised. Ensuring an opportunity for the people of Wisconsin to exercise their votes should be our paramount concern. * * * The majority of this Court declares that this case presents a “narrow, technical question.” Ante, at 423. That is wrong.

The question here is whether tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens can vote safely in the midst of a pandemic. Under the District Court's order, they would be able to do so.

Even if they receive their absentee ballot in the days imme- diately following election day, they could return it. With the majority's stay in place, that will not be possible. Either they will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others' safety. Or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own. That is a matter of utmost impor- tance—to the constitutional rights of Wisconsin's citizens, the integrity of the State's election process, and in this most extraordinary time, the health of the Nation.

Reporter’s Note Orders commencing with February 26, 2020, begin with page 1248. The preceding orders in 589 U. S., from October 7, 2019, through February 24, 2020, were reported in Part 1, at 901–1247. These page numbers are the same as they will be in the bound volume, thus making the permanent citations available upon publication of the preliminary prints of the United States Reports.

1248

February 26, March 2, 2020

February 26, 2020 Dismissal Under Rule 46 No. 18–217. Mathena, Warden v. Malvo. C. A. 4th Cir.

[Certiorari granted, 586 U. S. 1221.*] Writ of certiorari dis- missed under this Court's Rule 46.1.

March 2, 2020 Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded No. 18–309. Swartz v. Rodriguez, Individually and as the Surviving Mother and Personal Representative of *[Reporter’s Note: Argued October 16, 2019. Toby J. Heytens, Solicitor General of Virginia, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Mark R. Herring, Attorney General, Victoria N. Pearson, Deputy At- torney General, Matthew R. McGuire, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Donald E. Jeffrey III, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Michelle S.

Kallen, Deputy Solicitor General.

Eric J. Feigin argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging vacatur. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Francisco, Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski, Frederick Liu, and Robert A. Parker.

Danielle Spinelli argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Catherine M. A. Carroll, Kevin M. Lamb, Janet R. Carter, and Craig

S. Cooley.

Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were fled for the State of Indiana et al. by Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, Kian J. Hudson and Julia C. Payne, Deputy Attorneys

Steve Marshall of Alabama, Leslie Rutledge of Arkansas, Ashley Moody of Florida, Christopher M. Carr of Georgia, Lawrence G. Wasden of Idaho, Jeff Landry of Louisiana, Timothy C. Fox of Montana, Douglas J. Peterson of Nebraska, Alan Wilson of South Carolina, Jason R. Ravnsborg of South Dakota, Herbert H. Slatery III of Tennessee, Ken Paxton of Texas, Sean Reyes of Utah, and Bridget Hill of Wyoming; for the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation by Kent S. Scheidegger and Kymberlee C. Stapleton; for the Maryland Crime Victims' Resource Center, Inc., by Russell P. Butler and Victor D. Stone; and for Jonathan F. Mitchell et al. by Taylor A. R. Meehan.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affrmance were fled for the American Bar Association by Judy Perry Martinez, Christopher M. Murphy, and Lawrence

A. Wojcik; for Current and Former Prosecutors et al. by Mary B. McCord

and Annie L. Owens; for the Juvenile Law Center et al. by Marsha L. Levick, Riya Saha Shah, Heather Renwick, and Rebecca Turner; for David I. Bruck et al. by Ashley C. Parrish; for Erwin Chemerinsky et al. by John Mills, Larry Yackle, David D. Cole, Deborah A. Jeon, and Sonia Kumar; for Isa Nichols et al. by Angela C. Vigil; and for Former W. Va. Delegate John Ellem et al. by Mr. Ellem, pro se, V. Lowry Snow, James L. Dodd, and Suzanne S.

La Pierre.]

1249

March 2, 2020

J. A. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and

case remanded for further consideration in light of Hernández v.

Mesa, 589 U. S. 93 (2020). Reported below: 899 F. 3d 719.

No. 18–9164. Muro v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Mo- tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.

Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for fur- ther consideration in light of Holguin-Hernandez v. United States, 589 U. S. 169 (2020). Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 57.

No. 19–5601. Hicks v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Re- ported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 215; and No. 19–5789. McMillan v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.

Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 768. Motions of petitioners for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S. 225 (2019).

Certiorari Granted—Vacated No. 19–675. Bank of America Corp. et al. v. City of Miami, Florida; and No. 19–688. Wells Fargo & Co. et al. v. City of Miami, Florida. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari granted and judgment of the Court of Appeals vacated as moot. See United States v.

Munsingwear, 340 U. S. 36, 39–40 (1950). Reported below: 923

F. 3d 1260.

Certiorari Dismissed No. 19–7122. Raghubir v. Inch, Secretary, Florida De- partment of Corrections. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Mo- tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.

No. 19–7186. Young v. United States et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8. As petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat- ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506

U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).

1250

March 2, 2020

No. 19–7189. Moore v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Mo- tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 235.

Miscellaneous Orders No. 19A748. Goad v. Steel, Judge, et al. 274th Jud. Dist.

Ct. Tex., Comal County. Application for stay, addressed to Jus- tice Ginsburg and referred to the Court, denied.

No. 19M103. Elam et vir v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, et al.; and No. 19M106. Torres v. Continental Apartments et al.

Motions to direct the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.

No. 19M104. Hairston v. Department of Veterans Af- fairs. Motion for leave to proceed as a veteran denied.

No. 19M105. Miller v. United States. Motion for leave to fle petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.

No. 18–540. Rutledge, Attorney General of Arkansas

v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Assn. C. A. 8th Cir.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1127.] Motion of petitioner for leave to fle volume II of the joint appendix under seal granted.

No. 18–956. Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. C. A.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1066.] Motion of the Fed. Cir.

Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as ami- cus curiae and for divided argument granted.

No. 19–465. Chiafalo et al. v. Washington. Sup. Ct.

Wash.; and No. 19–518. Colorado Department of State v. Baca et al.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1165.] Motion of petitioners in No. 19–465 to dispense with printing joint appen- dix granted.

No. 19–7073. Thomas v. Kenmark Ventures, LLC. C. A.

9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau- peris denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 23, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to

1251

March 2, 2020 submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

No. 19–7564. In re Seibert; and No. 19–7643. In re Leonard. Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.

No. 19–7143. In re McDonald. Petition for writ of manda- mus denied.

No. 19–7435. In re Brooks. Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.

Certiorari Granted No. 19–547. United States Fish and Wildlife Service et al. v. Sierra Club, Inc. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari granted.

Reported below: 925 F. 3d 1000.

No. 19–840. California et al. v. Texas et al.; and No. 19–1019. Texas et al. v. California et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Motion of 33 State Hospital Associations for leave to fle brief as amici curiae in No. 19–840 granted. Certiorari granted, cases consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Reported below: 945 F. 3d 355.

No. 19–5410. Borden v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Mo- tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted.

Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the peti- tion. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 266.

Certiorari Denied No. 18–7105. Hunter v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 811.

No. 18–7797. Patrick v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 747 Fed. Appx. 797.

No. 18–8380. Pressey v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 18–8447. Wilson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 754 Fed. Appx. 930.

No. 18–9547. Williams v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

1252

March 2, 2020

No. 18–9772. Howard v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 779.

No. 18–9796. Jimerson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 749 Fed. Appx. 950.

No. 19–28. Daniels v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 148.

No. 19–229. C. D., By and Through Her Parents, M. D. et al., et al. v. Natick Public School District et al. C. A.

1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 621.

No. 19–550. Watso et al. v. Harpstead, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al. C. A.

8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 1024.

No. 19–572. Singh v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 924 F. 3d 1030.

No. 19–592. County Commissioners of Carroll County, Maryland v. Maryland Department of the Environment.

Ct. App. Md. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 465 Md. 169, 214 A. 3d 61.

No. 19–689. Chapman et al. v. ACE American Insurance Co. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 556.

No. 19–714. Pennsylvania v. Landis. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 201 A. 3d 768.

No. 19–806. Barth v. Township of Bernards, New Jersey, et al. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–808. Leibundguth Storage & Van Service, Inc. v.

Village of Downers Grove, Illinois. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 859.

No. 19–810. Badwal v. Badwal et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 756 Fed. Appx. 101.

No. 19–817. Shands v. Lakeland Central School Dis-

771 Fed. Appx. 121.

No. 19–821. Nsejjere v. Smith et ux. Ct. App. Wash.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 8 Wash. App. 2d 1044.

1253

March 2, 2020 No. 19–853. Sandra R. et al. v. Arizona Department of Child Safety. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 246 Ariz. 180, 436 P. 3d 503.

No. 19–866. Ubinas-Brache v. Surgery Center of Texas, LP. Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–898. Collins v. Thornton. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 264.

No. 19–927. Klocke, Independent Administrator of the Estate of Klocke v. University of Texas at Arlington.

No. 19–928. Johnson v. Darnell, Sheriff, Alachua County, Florida, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 961.

No. 19–929. Shuman et ux. v. Commissioner of Internal

774 Fed. Appx. 813.

No. 19–942. Zuckerman, as Ancillary Administratrix of the Estate of Leffmann v. Metropolitan Museum of Art.

No. 19–944. Seldin v. Seldin et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 182.

No. 19–952. Goodwin v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 196.

No. 19–954. Harriss v. Commissioner of Internal Reve- nue. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 425.

No. 19–965. Edwards v. Atterberry et al. Sup. Ct. Ill.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–969. Marshall et al. v. Commissioner of Internal

782 Fed. Appx. 565.

No. 19–973. Swanson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–5037. Villanueva v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

1254

March 2, 2020

No. 19–5247. Hedlund v. Arizona. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 245 Ariz. 467, 431 P. 3d 181.

No. 19–5309. Mitchell v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 103.

No. 19–5478. Madrigal v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 553.

No. 19–5480. Dorsey v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–5575. Yarbrough v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 214.

No. 19–5923. Hayes v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 574.

No. 19–6078. McDaniel v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 381.

No. 19–6148. Wilson v. Grimes et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 218.

No. 19–6213. Booker v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–6230. Fincher v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 501.

No. 19–6249. Faircloth v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 976.

No. 19–6405. Vereen v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 1300.

No. 19–6426. Ramirez v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi- sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 110.

No. 19–6596. Hettinga v. Loumena. Ct. App. Cal., 6th App.

Dist. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–6675. Bishop v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 940 F. 3d 1242.

1255

March 2, 2020 No. 19–6773. Ortega-Limones v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 222.

No. 19–6910. Moliere v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 574 S. W. 3d 21.

No. 19–7064. Beanblossom v. Bay District Schools. Dist.

Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 265 So. 3d 657.

No. 19–7091. Champagne v. Arizona. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 247 Ariz. 116, 447 P. 3d 297.

No. 19–7095. Smith v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 184.

No. 19–7101. Nowakowski v. E. E. Austin & Son, Inc., et al. Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7108. Moore v. LeGrand, Warden, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7110. Johnson v. McMahon, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7111. Johnson v. Portnoy et al. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7120. Sanchez v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7124. Butler v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7129. Moore v. New Jersey. Super. Ct. N. J., App.

Div. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7135. Hye-Young Park v. Secolsky et al. C. A.

7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7140. Medrano Ortiz v. Solomon et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 236.

No. 19–7150. Walton v. Kowalski, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

1256

March 2, 2020

No. 19–7157. Mother v. Lorain County Children Serv- ices. Ct. App. Ohio, 9th App. Dist., Lorain County. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019-Ohio-1152.

No. 19–7158. Montanez v. McDean, LLC. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 592.

No. 19–7160. Espinoza v. Ashe et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7162. Juan Negron v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7166. Karnofel v. Superior Waterproong, Inc.

Ct. App. Ohio, 11th App. Dist., Trumbull County. Certiorari de- nied. Reported below: 2019-Ohio-1409.

No. 19–7168. Johnson v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (3d) 170074–U.

No. 19–7181. Bell v. Oregon Health & Science Univer- sity. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7184. Brewer v. Cunningham, Superintendent, Fishkill Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7241. Cox v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–0769 (La. App. 1 Cir.

2/22/19), 272 So. 3d 597.

No. 19–7277. Moreira v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7284. Wallace v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7297. Burton v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De- partment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7329. Williams v. Gentry, Warden, et al. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 616.

No. 19–7357. Fordham v. Manzola et al. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 199.

No. 19–7372. Taylor v. District of Columbia. Ct. App.

D. C. Certiorari denied.

1257

March 2, 2020 No. 19–7376. Trappler v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct.

N. Y., 3d Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 173

App. Div. 3d 1334, 102 N. Y. S. 3d 756.

No. 19–7399. Harris v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7427. Perez-Jimenez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 381.

No. 19–7437. Sparks v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 748.

No. 19–7446. Echeverria-Benitez v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 375.

No. 19–7450. Steele v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 423.

No. 19–7454. Bareld v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 757.

No. 19–7457. Villarreal-Estebis v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 329.

No. 19–7460. Wright v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 8.

No. 19–7467. Beqiraj v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 Fed. Appx. 73.

No. 19–7477. Mejia v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 644.

No. 19–7478. Pye v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 808.

No. 19–7490. Ernesto Hernandez v. United States. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 525.

No. 19–7492. Jensen v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 800.

No. 19–7494. Thomas v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 518.

No. 19–7498. Sanders v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

1258

March 2, 2020

No. 19–7502. Peters v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7507. Gurule v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 935 F. 3d 878.

No. 19–7510. Block v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7512. Urias-Marquez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 406.

No. 19–7514. Essien v. Peery, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 776.

No. 19–7518. Reyes Garcia et al. v. United States. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 794 Fed. Appx. 567.

No. 19–7519. Hernandez-Nunez v. United States. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 633.

No. 19–7522. Matthews v. Louisiana. Ct. App. La., 1st Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–1107 (La. App. 1 Cir.

2/25/19).

No. 19–7540. Jackson v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart- ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re- ported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 774.

No. 18–7833. Hayes v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

No. 19–296. Guedes et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 920 F. 3d 1.

Statement of Justice Gorsuch respecting the denial of certiorari.

Does owning a bump stock expose a citizen to a decade in federal prison? For years, the government didn't think so. But recently the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives changed its mind. Now, according to a new interpretive rule from the agency, owning a bump stock is forbidden by a longstanding fed- eral statute that outlaws the “possession [of] a machine-gun.” 26 U. S. C. § 5685(b); 18 U. S. C. § 924(a)(2). Whether bump stocks can be fairly reclassifed and effectively outlawed as machine- guns under existing statutory definitions, I do not know

1259 1258

Statement of Gorsuch, J. and could not say without briefng and argument. Nor do I ques- tion that Congress might seek to enact new legislation directly regulating the use and possession of bump stocks. But at least one thing should be clear: Contrary to the court of appeals's deci- sion in this case, Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources De- fense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), has nothing to say about the proper interpretation of the law before us.

In the frst place, the government expressly waived reliance on Chevron. The government told the court of appeals that, if the validity of its rule (re)interpreting the machinegun statute “turns on the applicability of Chevron, it would prefer that the [r]ule be set aside rather than upheld. ” 920 F. 3d 1, 21 (CADC 2019) (per curiam). Yet, despite this concession, the court proceeded to uphold the agency's new rule only on the strength of Chevron deference. Think about it this way.

The executive branch and affected citizens asked the court to

supply its best independent judgment about what the law means. But, instead of deciding the case the old-fashioned way, the court placed an uninvited thumb on the scale in favor of the government.

That was mistaken. This Court has often declined to apply Chevron deference when the government fails to invoke it. See Eskridge & Baer, The Continuum of Deference: Supreme Court Treatment of Agency Statutory Interpretations From Chevron to Hamdan, 96 Geo. L. J. 1083, 1121–1124 (2008) (collecting cases); Merrill, Judicial Deference to Executive Precedent, 101 Yale L. J.

969, 982–984 (1992) (same); see BNSF R. Co. v. Loos, 586 U. S.

310 (2019). Even when Chevron deference is sought, this Court has found it inappropriate where “the Executive seems of two minds” about the result it prefers. Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U. S. 497, 520 (2018). Nor is it a surprise that the govern- ment can lose the beneft of Chevron in situations like these and ours. If the justifcation for Chevron is that “ `policy choices' should be left to Executive Branch offcials `directly accountable to the people,' ” Epic Systems, 584 U. S., at 520 (quoting Chevron, 467 U. S., at 865), then courts must equally respect the Executive's decision not to make policy choices in the interpretation of Con- gress's handiwork.

To make matters worse, the law before us carries the possibility of criminal sanctions. And, as the government itself may have

1260

Statement of Gorsuch, J.

recognized in offering its disclaimer, whatever else one thinks about Chevron, it has no role to play when liberty is at stake.

Under our Constitution, “[o]nly the people's elected representa- tives in the legislature are authorized to `make an act a crime.' ” United States v. Davis, 588 U. S. 445, 451 (2019) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812)). Before courts may send people to prison, we owe them an independent determination that the law actually forbids their conduct. A “reasonable” prosecutor's say-so is cold comfort in comparison. That's why this Court has “never held that the Government's reading of a criminal statute is entitled to any deference.” United States v.

Apel, 571 U. S. 359, 369 (2014). Instead, we have emphasized, courts bear an “obligation” to determine independently what the law allows and forbids. Abramski v. United States, 573 U. S. 169, 191 (2014); see also 920 F. 3d, at 39–40 (opinion of Henderson, J.); Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch, 810 F. 3d 1019, 1027–1032 (CA6 2016) (Sutton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). That obligation went unfulflled here.

Chevron's application in this case may be doubtful for other reasons too. The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don't qualify as “machineguns.” Now it says the opposite. The law hasn't changed, only an agency's interpretation of it. And these days it sometimes seems agencies change their statutory interpretations almost as often as elections change administra- tions. How, in all this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous; to guess again whether the agency's initial interpretation of the law will be declared “reasonable”; and to guess again whether a later and opposing agency interpretation will also be held “rea- sonable”? And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?

Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review. The er- rors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before fnal judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are ac- tively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before de- ciding whether to weigh in, we would beneft from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not af-

1261

March 2, 5, 2020 ficted with the same problems. But waiting should not be mis- taken for lack of concern.

No. 19–7458. Myers v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consid- eration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 786 Fed.

Appx. 161.

No. 19–7486. Lindsay v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consider- ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 931 F. 3d 852.

No. 19–7489. Duran v. Diaz, Secretary, California De- partment of Corrections and Rehabilitation. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari before judgment denied.

Rehearing Denied No. 19–6153. Nelson v. Burt, Warden, 589 U. S. 1107; No. 19–6337. Birch-Min v. Middlesex County Board of Social Services et al., 589 U. S. 1144; No. 19–6457. D. B. v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, 589 U. S. 1147; No. 19–6470. Marshall v. Steeh et al., 589 U. S. 1147; and No. 19–6537. Everson v. Lantz et al., 589 U. S. 1149. Peti- tions for rehearing denied.

No. 18–9296. In re Dannewitz, 589 U. S. 915. Motion for leave to fle petition for rehearing denied.

March 5, 2020 Miscellaneous Order No. 19A984. Woods v. Stewart, Warden, et al. Applica- tion for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Certiorari Denied No. 19–7880 (19A976). Woods v. Dunn, Commissioner, Ala- bama Department of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied.

Certiorari denied. The order heretofore entered by Justice Thomas is vacated. Reported below: 951 F. 3d 1288.

1262

March 6, 9, 2020 March 6, 2020

Miscellaneous Order No. 19A906. Actavis Holdco U. S., Inc., et al. v. Connecti- cut et al. D. C. E. D. Pa. Application for stay, presented to Justice Alito, and by him referred to the Court, denied. The order heretofore entered by Justice Alito is vacated.

March 9, 2020 Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded No. 19–566. Pierson v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer- tiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of Rehaif v. United States, 588 U. S. 225 (2019). Reported below: 925 F. 3d 913.

Miscellaneous Orders No. 19M107. National Football League et al. v. Ninth Inning, Inc., et al. Motion for leave to fle petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under seal granted.

No. 19M108. Anderson v. Robitaille. Motion for leave to fle petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under seal denied. Motion for leave to proceed in forma pau- peris with declaration of indigency under seal denied.

No. 19M109. Appleton v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc.

Motion to direct the Clerk to fle petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.

No. 19–292. Torres v. Madrid et al. C. A. 10th Cir.

[Cer- tiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1126.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

No. 19–431. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al.; and No. 19–454. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Pennsylvania et al. C. A. 3d Cir.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1165.] Motion of petitioners in No. 19–454 to dispense with printing joint appendix granted.

No. 19–6516. Veteto v. Grifn, Judge, Circuit Court of Alabama, Montgomery County, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Mo-

1263

March 9, 2020 tion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 1128] denied.

No. 19–6564. In re Wei Zhou. Motion of petitioner for re- consideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pau- peris [589 U. S. 1131] denied.

No. 19–7339. Jones v. Wells Fargo Bank, N. A., et al.

pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 30, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

No. 19–7230. In re Lopez. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.

No. 19–7296. In re Martinez. Petition for writ of manda- mus and/or prohibition denied.

Certiorari Granted No. 18–1259. Jones v. Mississippi. Ct. App. Miss. Certio- rari granted. Reported below: 285 So. 3d 626.

Certiorari Denied No. 18–9546. Wills v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–320. Wade et ux. v. Kreisler Law, P. C. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 926 F. 3d 447.

No. 19–549. Hannah P. v. Maguire, Acting Director, Of- ce of the Director of National Intelligence. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 916 F. 3d 327.

No. 19–670. Fleck v. Wetch et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 1112.

No. 19–701. Johnson v. Rimmer et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 936 F. 3d 695.

No. 19–708. Gold Value International Textile, Inc. v.

Sanctuary Clothing, LLC, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–725. Guy v. Lampert, Director, Wyoming Depart- ment of Corrections, et al. Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari de- nied. Reported below: 2019 WY 69, 444 P. 3d 652.

1264

March 9, 2020

No. 19– 820. McMahon, Sheriff of San Bernardino County, et al. v. Chemehuevi Indian Tribe et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 1076.

No. 19–837. Kunkel et al. v. Northern Kentucky Inde- pendent Health District et al. Sup. Ct. Ky. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–842. Schwartz v. Clark County, Nevada, et al.

Appx. 918.

No. 19–843. Holtzclaw v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 OK CR 17, 448 P. 3d 1134.

No. 19–844. Graham v. Wininger. Ct. App. Ind. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 131 N. E. 3d 187.

No. 19–892. United States ex rel. Gelbman v. City of New York et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 244.

No. 19–916. Risby v. Wolf, Acting Secretary of Home- land Security, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re- ported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 607.

No. 19–923. Barnes v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, et al.

No. 19–962. Norwood v. West Virginia. Sup. Ct. App.

W. Va. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 242 W. Va. 149, 832

S. E. 2d 75.

No. 19–971. James et al. v. JW Gaming Development,

Fed. Appx. 545.

No. 19–976. Edge et al. v. City of Everett, Washington.

No. 19–999. Dugan v. Wyoming. Sup. Ct. Wyo. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 WY 112, 451 P. 3d 731.

No. 19–1002. Automotive Body Parts Assn. v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari de- nied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 1314.

1265

March 9, 2020 No. 19–1018. Gallop v. Adult Correctional Institutions et al. Sup. Ct. R. I. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 218

A. 3d 543.

No. 19–6151. Ali v. Foss, Acting Warden, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 580.

No. 19–6482. Smith v. Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19–6500. Dominguez-Villalobos v. United States.

Appx. 226.

No. 19–6502. Fields v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 316.

No. 19–6546. Garcia Ramirez v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 758.

No. 19–6795. Conde-Herrera v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 234.

No. 19–6796. Castanon-Renteria v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 230.

No. 19–6825. Guerrero v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 921 F. 3d 895.

No. 19–6862. Betsinger v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–6877. Brown v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7142. Haymon v. Johnson. App. Div., Super. Ct. Cal., County of San Joaquin. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7179. Ari v. California. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7190. Benavides v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7192. Walker v. Pash, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

1266

March 9, 2020

No. 19–7195. Weatherspoon v. Colorado. Ct. App. Colo.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7196. Zimmerman v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 5th Dist.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7202. Powell v. Lab Corp. et al. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 Fed. Appx. 237.

No. 19–7203. McKinney v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi- sion, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7204. Wilson v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart- ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 878.

No. 19–7205. Johnson v. Progressive Corporation Insur- ance Co. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7206. Johnson v. Law Offices of Jennifer S.

Adams et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7210. Cash v. Rupert et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 110.

No. 19–7211. Brown v. Sage et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 655.

No. 19–7212. Alexander v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7213. Banks v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7214. Brown v. Mace-Liebson et al. C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx. 136.

No. 19–7219. Canales v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 281 So. 3d 487.

No. 19–7229. Lowe v. Parris et al. Ct. App. Tenn. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7232. Parra v. Lizarraga, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

1267

March 9, 2020 No. 19–7240. Allen-Bey v. Michigan State Treasurer.

Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7244. Alandt v. Arkansas. Ct. App. Ark. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 2018 Ark. App. 493, 561 S. W. 3d 764.

No. 19–7252. Jason v. Tanner, Warden, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 938 F. 3d 191.

No. 19–7267. Snowton v. United States et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 443.

No. 19–7273. Rodriguez-Palomino v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (2d) 160361–B, 126 N. E. 3d 746.

No. 19–7287. Banks v. Vannoy, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7316. Bough v. Hutchison, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7343. Williams v. Hall, Warden. Sup. Ct. Ga.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7384. King v. Benton County Sheriff ’s Office et al. Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7409. Pryor v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 1042.

No. 19–7432. Calligan v. Indiana. Ct. App. Ind. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 123 N. E. 3d 724.

No. 19–7447. Rudenko v. Shanley, Superintendent, Cox- sackie Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7468. Phillips v. Kentucky. Ct. App. Ky. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7470. Martinez-Lopez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 Fed. Appx. 973.

No. 19–7480. Lynch v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 904.

1268

March 9, 2020

No. 19–7482. Nunez v. Bowerman, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7485. Aguon v. Montgomery, Warden, et al. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7497. Silvestri v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7521. Harley v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 844.

No. 19–7533. Sinanan v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 209 A. 3d 519.

No. 19–7535. Reed v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 467.

No. 19–7539. Kane v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7552. Guarascio v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 248.

No. 19–7557. Yarbough v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 41.

No. 19–7561. Ramirez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 748.

No. 19–7566. Asefi v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 788 Fed. Appx. 449.

No. 19–7567. Ben v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 443.

No. 19–7568. Brewster v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 455.

No. 19–7575. Carter v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 820.

No. 19–7581. Taylor et al. v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 935 F. 3d 1279.

No. 19–7587. Burdunice v. Minnesota. Ct. App. Minn.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7590. Howell v. Hatton, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

1269

March 9, 2020 No. 19–7598. Valencia-Cruz v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7610. Camberos-Villapuda v. United States.

No. 19–7622. Elliott v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 1310.

No. 19–7633. Allen v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7653. Bigbee v. Lebo, Warden. Ct. Crim. App.

Tenn. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7659. Rios et vir v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 242 W. Va. 581, 836 S. E. 2d 799.

No. 19–7671. Bradley v. Minnesota. Ct. App. Minn. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–392. Armstrong v. Securities and Exchange Com- mission et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Sotomayor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 767 Fed. Appx. 166.

No. 19–466. Pittman v. Harris. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Alito would grant the petition for writ of cer- tiorari. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 266.

No. 19–909. Malouf v. Securities and Exchange Commis- sion. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Re- ported below: 933 F. 3d 1248.

No. 19–958. Mikhak v. University of Phoenix, Inc. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 740.

No. 19–6878. Bolden v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari before judgment denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

No. 19–7525. Sitzmann v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the

1270

March 9, 10, 2020

consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 893

F. 3d 811.

No. 19–7636. Eiland v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the con- sideration or decision of this petition.

Rehearing Denied No. 19–125. Zamore v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., Individually and as Trustee for JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2007–CH5 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certicates Series 2007–CH5, et al., 589 U. S. 1133; No. 19–580. Jun Xiao v. Regents of the University of Minnesota et al., 589 U. S. 1137; No. 19–599. Mohorne v. Beal Bank et al., 589 U. S. 1138; No. 19–639. Shao v. Tsan-Kuen Wang, 589 U. S. 1168; No. 19–5957. Haynes v. Riverside Presbyterian Apart- ments, 589 U. S. 1072; No. 19–6281. Sanders v. Obama et al., 589 U. S. 1123; No. 19–6386. Xue Jie He v. Guttenberg New Jersey Po- lice et al., 589 U. S. 1145; et al., 589 U. S. 1145; No. 19–6387. Grifn v. American Zurich Insurance Co.

No. 19–6532. Amaro v. Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, et al., 589 U. S. 1149; No. 19–6542. Hall v. Author Solutions et al., 589 U. S.

1149

No. 19–6648. Barenz v. Alaska, 589 U. S. 1151; No. 19–6744. Merck v. Minnesota Supreme Court et al., 589 U. S. 1182; and No. 19–6776. Dawson v. Wells, 589 U. S. 1155. Petitions for rehearing denied.

Miscellaneous Orders March 10, 2020 No. 19–465. Chiafalo et al. v. Washington. Sup. Ct.

Wash. [Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1165.] Case no longer con- solidated with No. 19–518, Colorado Department of State v. Baca et al., and one hour is allotted for oral argument in this case.

No. 19–518. Colorado Department of State v. Baca et al.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1165.] Case no

1271

March 10, 11, 16, 19, 2020 longer consolidated with No. 19–465, Chiafalo v. Washington, and one hour is allotted for oral argument in this case. Justice So- tomayor took no part in the consideration of this order.

March 11, 2020 Miscellaneous Order No. 19A960. Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Secu- rity, et al. v. Innovation Law Lab et al. D. C. N. D. Cal.

Application for stay, presented to Justice Kagan, and by her referred to the Court, granted, and the District Court's April 8, 2019, order granting preliminary injunction is stayed pending the timely fling and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari.

Should the petition for writ of certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. Justice Sotomayor would deny the application.

March 16, 2020 Dismissals Under Rule 46 No. 19–264. Kelly, Superintendent, Oregon State Peni- tentiary v. White. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.1. Reported below: 365 Ore. 1, 443 P. 3d 597.

No. 19–265. Kelly, Superintendent, Oregon State Peni- tentiary v. White. Sup. Ct. Ore. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.1. Reported below: 365 Ore. 21, 443 P. 3d 608.

March 19, 2020 Miscellaneous Order In light of the ongoing public health concerns relating to COVID–19, the following shall apply to cases prior to a ruling on

IT IS ORDERED that the deadline to fle any petition for a writ of certiorari due on or after the date of this order is extended to 150 days from the date of the lower court judgment, order denying discretionary review, or order denying a timely petition for rehearing. See this Court's Rules 13.1 and 13.3.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that motions for extensions of time pursuant to Rule 30.4 will ordinarily be granted by the

1272

March 19, 23, 2020

Clerk as a matter of course if the grounds for the application are diffculties relating to COVID–19 and if the length of the exten- sion requested is reasonable under the circumstances. Such mo- tions should indicate whether the opposing party has an objection.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, notwithstanding Rules 15.5 and 15.6, the Clerk will entertain motions to delay distribution of a petition for writ of certiorari where the grounds for the motion are that the petitioner needs additional time to fle a reply due to diffculties relating to COVID–19. Such motions will ordi- narily be granted by the Clerk as a matter of course if the length of the extension requested is reasonable under the circumstances and if the motion is actually received by the Clerk at least two days prior to the relevant distribution date. Such motions should indicate whether the opposing party has an objection.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that these modifcations to the Court's Rules and practices do not apply to cases in which certio- rari has been granted or a direct appeal or original action has been set for argument.

These modifcations will remain in effect until further order of the Court.

March 23, 2020 Dismissal Under Rule 46 No. 19–730. McKesson v. Doe. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46. Reported below: 945

F. 3d 818.

Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded.

(See also Davis v.

United States, 589 U. S. 345 (2020) (per curiam).)

No. 19–6113. Bazan v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Re- ported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 214; and No. 19–6431. Bazan v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Re- ported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 811. Motions of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari granted, judg- ments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Davis v. United States, 589 U. S. 345 (2020) (per curiam).

Certiorari Dismissed No. 19–6991. Lei Ke v. Drexel University. Super. Ct. Pa.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de- nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8. As

1273

March 23, 2020 petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal mat- ters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506

U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Reported below: 201 A. 3d 876.

No. 19–7254. Smith v. Washington. Sup. Ct. Wash. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.

No. 19–7403. Shove v. Davis, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Mo- tion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.

Miscellaneous Orders No. 19M110. Doe v. United States. Motion for leave to fle petition for writ of certiorari under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted.

No. 19M111. Mayes v. Windom et al.; and No. 19M112. Medina v. United States. Motions to direct the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.

No. 19M113. Clowers v. Cradduck et al. Motion to direct the Clerk to fle petition for writ of certiorari out of time under this Court's Rule 14.5 denied.

No. 65, Orig. Texas v. New Mexico. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus cu- riae and for divided argument granted.

[For earlier order herein, see, e. g., 589 U. S. 1177.]

No. 19–267. Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey- Berru; and No. 19–348. St. James School v. Biel, as Personal Repre- sentative of the Estate of Biel. C. A. 9th Cir.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1126–1127.] Motion of Virginia et al. for leave to participate in oral argument as amici curiae and for divided argument denied. Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

1274

March 23, 2020

No. 19–357. City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton et al.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1126.] Motion of

the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

No. 19–431. Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al.; and No. 19–454. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Pennsylvania et al. C. A. 3d Cir.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1165.] Motion of petitioner in No. 19–431 to dispense with printing joint appendix granted.

No. 19–635. Trump v. Vance, District Attorney of the County of New York, et al. C. A. 2d Cir.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1120.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.

No. 19–715. Trump et al. v. Mazars USA, LLP, et al.

No. 19–760. Trump et al. v. Deutsche Bank AG et al.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1120.] Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as ami- cus curiae and for divided argument granted.

No. 19–6786. Morris v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Mo- tion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis [589 U. S. 1165] denied.

No. 19–7310. Smith v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until April 13, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

No. 19–932. In re Murphy. Petition for writ of habeas cor- pus denied.

No. 19–7351. In re Thomas Bey; and No. 19–7411. In re McCray. Petitions for writs of manda- mus denied.

No. 19–7374. In re Wallace. Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.

1275

March 23, 2020 Certiorari Denied No. 18–8804. Raymond v. Roy et al. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–484. Doe et al. v. Federal Election Commission.

866.

No. 19–497. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. v. Lin- coln Property Co. et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 920 F. 3d 890.

No. 19–500. Siddiqui v. NetJets Aviation, Inc. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 562.

No. 19–597. Reese v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al. C. A.

Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 774 Fed. Appx.

656.

No. 19–604. Francway v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans

940 F. 3d 1304.

No. 19–607. Woodcrest Homes, Inc. v. Carousel Farms Metropolitan District. Sup. Ct. Colo. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 442 P. 3d 402.

No. 19–646. Adkins et al. v. Collens. Sup. Ct. Alaska.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 444 P. 3d 187.

No. 19–735. Tong, Attorney General of Connecticut v.

Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority et al. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 65.

No. 19–756. Taylor v. Pima County, Arizona, et al. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 913 F. 3d 930.

No. 19–763. Angino et al. v. TransUnion LLC. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–765. Faust, Director, Arizona Department of Child Safety v. B. K., by Her Next Friend Tinsley, et al.

No. 19–852. Maxell, Ltd. v. Fandango Media, LLC. C. A.

Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 779 Fed. Appx.

745.

1276

March 23, 2020

No. 19–858. GemCap Lending I, LLC v. Quarles & Brady,

787 Fed. Appx. 369.

No. 19–861. Shumski v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–876. Ramirez v. Hogue et al. Sup. Ct. N. D. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 ND 245, 933 N. W. 2d 468.

No. 19–884. Caldwell et ux. v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–885. Swartz et al. v. Heartland Equine Rescue et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 940

F. 3d 387.

No. 19–886. Negash et al. v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 772 Fed. Appx. 34.

No. 19–888. Longmire v. Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schl- esinger & Kuh, LLP. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 1st Jud. Dept.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 106 App. Div. 3d 536, 965

N. Y. S. 3d 458.

No. 19–890. Jensen v. Blumenstiel, Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Califor- nia, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–895. McDonald v. Bellco Credit Union. Ct. App.

Colo. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–902. Ramon Ochoa v. Levine et al. Super. Ct. Pa.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–911. Castro v. Simon, Individually and in Her Of- cial Capacity as Deputy Commissioner, et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 50.

No. 19–913. Siddiqui et vir, Individually and as Per- sonal Representatives of the Estate of Siddiqui, De- ceased v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 484.

No. 19–915. Scott et ux. v. U. S. Bank N. A. et al. C. A.

8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

1277

March 23, 2020 No. 19–918. Lucero v. Koncilja et al. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 786.

No. 19–921. Paz v. Director, New Jersey Division of Tax- ation. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–938. Clark v. New York Commissioner of Social Services. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–961. Haselrig v. Inslee. Ct. App. Wash. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 7 Wash. App. 2d 1052.

No. 19–964. Lawrence v. University Hospital et al.

Appx. 577.

No. 19–979. Crick v. Key, Superintendent, Airway Heights Corrections Center. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–989. Johnson, Individually and as Trustee of the Annabell M. Palmer Family Trust, et al. v. UBS AG. C. A.

2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 Fed. Appx. 240.

No. 19–991. Primm v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–1005. Hotze Health Wellness Center Interna- tional One, LLC, et al. v. Environmental Research Center, Inc. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–1007. Abdul-Aziz v. National Basketball Associa- tion Players’ Pension Plan. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 46.

No. 19–1011. Kelly v. United States. C. A. Armed Forces.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–1015. Walker v. Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 211.

No. 19–1017. Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., et al. C. A.

Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 931 F. 3d 1161.

No. 19–1025. City of Ferguson, Missouri v. Fant et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. 1278

March 23, 2020

No. 19–1027. Caswell v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 788 Fed. Appx. 650.

No. 19–1032. Waters v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 1344.

No. 19–1041. Khrapko v. Splain et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–1068. Inchierchiere v. Florida Department of Corrections et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–5487. Nino v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 750 Fed. Appx. 589.

No. 19–5926. Quintanar v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 706.

No. 19–5995. Clark v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–6236. Eichler v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 707.

No. 19–6282. Salazar-Martinez v. United States (Re- ported below: 774 Fed. Appx. 192); Morales-Gallegos v.

United States (774 Fed. Appx. 191); and Robledo-Cuevas v.

United States (774 Fed. Appx. 919). C. A. 5th Cir. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–6296. Holmes v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 1013.

No. 19–6361. McKown v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 721.

No. 19–6363. Pearson v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–6370. Bennett v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 547.

No. 19–6464. Garcia-Jacobo v. Feather, Warden. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 787.

No. 19–6465. Jones v. Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

1279

March 23, 2020 No. 19–6710. Bowling v. Clarke, Director, Virginia De- partment of Corrections. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 920 F. 3d 192.

No. 19–6740. Rhoton v. Brown, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–6901. Barrera-Montes v. United States; No. 19–6938. Garcia-Solar v. United States; and No. 19–7484. Perez-Cruz v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 523.

No. 19–6906. Alexander v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 860.

No. 19–6918. Nance v. Ford, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 1298.

No. 19–6934. Johnson v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions

935 F. 3d 284.

No. 19–6942. Carter v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 707.

No. 19–6965. Kincaide v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 908.

No. 19–7011. Golden v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 164.

No. 19–7021. Hunter et al. v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 610.

No. 19–7022. Cruz v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7045. Jones v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 177.

No. 19–7222. Richardson v. Thomas, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 587.

No. 19–7224. Jones v. Goldberg et al. Ct. Sp. App. Md.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 241 Md. App. 740 and 743.

No. 19–7233. Nash v. Kenney et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 54.

1280

March 23, 2020

No. 19–7262. Mallari v. Vessigault et al. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 771 Fed. Appx. 835.

No. 19–7263. Khurana v. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare. Ct. App. Idaho. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7279. Oliphant-Johns v. Good Deal Remodeling.

Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7280. Jones v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart- ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari de- nied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 1019.

No. 19–7281. Grant v. MTGLQ Investors, L. P. Ct. App.

D. C. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7282. Arnold v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7286. Caldwell v. Downs et al. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 Fed. Appx. 183.

No. 19–7290. Garland v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 32 N. Y. 3d 1094, 114 N. E. 3d 1071.

No. 19–7295. Johnson v. Nationwide Insurance Co. et al.

No. 19–7299. Barrera v. Nagy, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7300. Booker v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi- sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7301. Goodrum v. Hutchison, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7302. Shampine v. Sarver’s Realty et al. C. A.

6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7303. Smith v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7306. Pronin v. Wright et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 181.

1281

March 23, 2020 No. 19–7308. McGavitt v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 8th Dist.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7311. Frazier v. City of Omaha Police Depart- ment et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7317. Chailla v. Navient Department of Educa-

791 Fed. Appx. 226.

No. 19–7319. Waters v. Stewart et al. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 134.

No. 19–7321. Snowton v. United States et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 472.

No. 19–7328. Taylor v. City of Colonial Heights, Vir- ginia (Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 129); and Taylor v. Ir- ving, Sheriff, City of Richmond, Virginia (777 Fed. Appx.

682). C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7338. Moran v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 288 So. 3d 77.

No. 19–7340. Vazquez-Suarez v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App.

Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 282 So. 3d 106.

No. 19–7342. Turner v. Cadney et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7344. Williams v. Jackson County, Missouri. C. A.

8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx.

312.

No. 19–7345. Sanchez v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi- sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 936

F. 3d 300.

No. 19–7346. Clark v. Department of the Army et al.

Appx. 168.

No. 19–7347. Marshall v. Texas (two judgments). Ct. App.

Tex., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.

1282

March 23, 2020

No. 19–7348. Alston, aka Austin v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 174 App. Div. 3d 1349, 105 N. Y. S. 3d 680.

No. 19–7349. Osornio v. Supreme Court of the United States et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7350. Batteneld v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App.

Okla. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7353. Okon v. Knutson, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7354. Martin v. Kelley, Director, Arkansas De- partment of Correction. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7355. Gaines v. Johnson, Administrator, New Jer- sey State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7358. Harrell v. Faireld Police Department et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7360. Simonton v. Garman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Rockview, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7362. Regalado v. Trump, President of the United States, et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7373. Tyagi v. Smith et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 42.

No. 19–7377. Adger v. New York. App. Div., Sup. Ct. N. Y., 4th Jud. Dept. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 170 App.

Div. 3d 1619, 94 N. Y. S. 3d 471.

No. 19–7378. Diaz v. San Bernardino County, California, et al. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 42.

No. 19–7379. Capers v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 7 Cal. 5th 989, 446 P. 3d 726.

No. 19–7380. Constance v. United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7383. May v. Arkansas. Ct. App. Ark. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 Ark. App. 443, 587 S. W. 3d 257.

1283

March 23, 2020 No. 19–7385. Kimbel v. Texas. Ct. App. Tex., 4th Dist.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7390. Ellis v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7395. Crump v. United States et al. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 765 Fed. Appx. 143.

No. 19–7397. Hudson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole. Sup. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 651 Pa. 308, 204 A. 3d 392.

No. 19–7398. Gibbons v. Knutson, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7407. Bennett v. Brewer, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 940 F. 3d 279.

No. 19–7413. Clancy v. Florida Department of Correc- tions et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 779.

No. 19–7414. Whitley v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7415. Davis v. Fayette County Appraisal District et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 779.

No. 19–7428. O’Laughlin v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 840.

No. 19–7429. Mitchell v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 7 Cal. 5th 561, 443 P. 3d 1.

No. 19–7436. Reeves v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Se-

794 Fed. Appx. 851.

No. 19–7443. Milton v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart- ment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7449. Smith v. Oreol. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7463. Burlison v. Ellspermann, Individually and in His Ofcial Capacity as Clerk of Court for Marion

1284

March 23, 2020

County, Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari de- nied. Reported below: 286 So. 3d 775.

No. 19–7471. Brown v. San Bernardino County, Califor- nia, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7515. Nguyen v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 2d App.

Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7516. Mosley v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 353.

No. 19–7517. Palacios-Cordero v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 365.

No. 19–7520. Feeney v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 393.

No. 19–7523. Lawson v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart- ment of Corrections. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7526. Segura-Resendiz v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 422.

No. 19–7528. Smith v. Jackson. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 177.

No. 19–7530. Thompson v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 257 So. 3d 573.

No. 19–7536. Simpson v. Bishop et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 257.

No. 19–7543. Osborn v. Williams et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7547. Cashion v. Texas (two judgments). Ct. App.

Tex., 6th Dist. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7548. Cabrera v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 450.

No. 19–7551. Herrington v. Virginia. Sup. Ct. Va. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7558. Wilson v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart- ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 825.

1285

March 23, 2020 No. 19–7562. Smith v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 131.

No. 19–7571. Williams v. Mays, Warden. Ct. Crim. App.

Tenn. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7574. Beltran v. United States; and No. 19–7594. Lopez-Cabrera v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 95.

No. 19–7580. Cristo v. Commissioner of Internal Reve- nue. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 303.

No. 19–7584. Yazzie v. Mohave County, Arizona, et al.

Appx. 1018.

No. 19–7585. Ellis v. Barlow-Hurst, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7586. Donahue v. Pennsylvania Civil Service Commission. Commw. Ct. Pa. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 204 A. 3d 1064.

No. 19–7588. Bible v. United States. C. A. Fed. Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 1039.

No. 19–7593. Young Yi v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7599. Smith-Kilpatrick v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 942 F. 3d 734.

No. 19–7602. Harrell v. Belyea et al. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7606. McKinnon v. Florida (two judgments). Sup.

Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7608. Perez-Roman v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 464.

No. 19–7614. Perry v. Brown. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7616. Blajos v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

1286

March 23, 2020

No. 19–7617. Amaya-Rivas v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 671.

No. 19–7620. Campbell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 311.

No. 19–7623. Silkeutsabay et al. v. United States. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 538.

No. 19–7624. Shaw v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 74.

No. 19–7625. Swinton v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 2d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 289 So. 3d 469.

No. 19–7630. Hollingshed v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 940 F. 3d 410.

No. 19–7631. Wolgamott v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 531.

No. 19–7634. Hankins v. Lowe. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 756.

No. 19–7635. Courtney v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 444.

No. 19–7638. Cruz Perez v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 955.

No. 19–7640. Carrier v. Romero, Warden. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7646. Fitzgerald v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 935 F. 3d 814.

No. 19–7648. Harris v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 256.

No. 19–7650. D. W. v. Washington State Department of Children, Youth and Families. Ct. App. Wash. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7652. Whyte v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 795 Fed. Appx. 353.

No. 19–7654. Eloi v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

1287

March 23, 2020 No. 19–7656. Huntoon v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7661. Dervishaj v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 12.

No. 19–7662. Orellana v. Madden, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 Fed. Appx. 34.

No. 19–7663. LaSalle v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 410.

No. 19–7664. Barnett v. United States; and Sesson v.

United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7667. Williams v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 876.

No. 19–7675. Johnson v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7677. Cody v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7681. Washington v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7682. Beverly v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 943 F. 3d 225.

No. 19–7695. Delacruz v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7697. Lovell v. Children ’s Corner Daycare.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7698. Calderon-Ortalejo v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx.

281.

No. 19–7705. Burghardt v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 397.

No. 19–7707. Arthur v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7711. Vescuso v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 666.

1288

March 23, 2020

No. 19–7713. Oudems v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 234.

No. 19–7716. Wallace v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 130.

No. 19–7718. Reyes v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 795 Fed. Appx. 10.

No. 19–7719. Sheafe v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 789 Fed. Appx. 22.

No. 19–7720. Jones v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 795 Fed. Appx. 889.

No. 19–7730. Alexander v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 48.

No. 19–7733. Diaz v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7737. Wolfe v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 566.

No. 19–7744. Rai Chowdhuri v. SGT, Inc., et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 171.

No. 19–7747. Sueiro v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 946 F. 3d 637.

No. 19–7749. Bridges v. Gray, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7750. Brown v. Hutchison, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7752. Ochoa v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 1074.

No. 19–7754. Peeters v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 948.

No. 19–7757. Popoola v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 933 F. 3d 302.

No. 19–7760. Achey v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 943 F. 3d 909.

No. 19–633. Avery v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 741.

1289

March 23, 2020 Statement of Justice Kavanaugh respecting the denial of certiorari.

Federal prisoners can seek postconviction relief by fling an application under 28 U. S. C. § 2255. State prisoners can seek fed- eral postconviction relief by fling an application under § 2254.

The issue in this case concerns second-or-successive applica- tions. As relevant here, the law provides that a “claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” § 2244(b)(1) (emphasis added).

The text of that second-or-successive statute covers only appli- cations fled by state prisoners under § 2254. Yet six Courts of Appeals have interpreted the statute to cover applications fled by state prisoners under § 2254 and by federal prisoners under § 2255, even though the text of the law refers only to § 2254. See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F. 3d 315 (CA2 2013); United States v. Winkelman, 746 F. 3d 134, 135–136 (CA3 2014); In re Bourgeois, 902 F. 3d 446, 447 (CA5 2018); Taylor v. Gilkey, 314

F. 3d 832, 836 (CA7 2002); Winarske v. United States, 913 F. 3d

765, 768–769 (CA8 2019); In re Baptiste, 828 F. 3d 1337, 1340

After Avery's case was decided, the Sixth Circuit recently re jected the other Circuits' interpretation of the second-or- successive statute and held that the statute covers only applica- tions fled by state prisoners under § 2254. Williams v. United States, 927 F. 3d 427 (2019).

Importantly, the United States now agrees with the Sixth Cir- cuit that “Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to Section 2255 mo- tions” and that the contrary view is “inconsistent with the text of Section 2244.” Brief in Opposition 10, 13. In other words, the Government now disagrees with the rulings of the six Courts of Appeals that had previously decided the issue in the Govern- ment's favor.

In a future case, I would grant certiorari to resolve the circuit split on this question of federal law.

No. 19–723. White v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Mo- tion for leave to fle brief in opposition under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted. Motion for leave to fle reply brief under seal with redacted copies for the public record granted. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 257.

1290

March 23, 2020

No. 19–869. Weber v. Allergan, Inc. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 940 F. 3d 1106.

No. 19–6589. Norman et al. v. United States. C. A. D. C.

Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in

926 F. 3d 304.

No. 19–7589. Monzel v. United States. C. A. D. C. Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 930

F. 3d 470.

No. 19–7604. Lumpkin v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting. I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586 U. S. 953 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

Rehearing Denied No. 18–9645. Black v. Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,

No. 19–493. Maksimuk v. Connor Sport Court Interna- tional, LLC, 589 U. S. 1135; No. 19–552. Salzwedel v. California et al., 589 U. S. 1136; No. 19–582. Edmondson v. Lilliston Ford Inc. et al., 589

No. 19–637. Serna v. Webster et al., 589 U. S. 1167; No. 19–705. Sharpe v. United States, 589 U. S. 1180; No. 19–6329. Boyd v. Monroe et al., 589 U. S. 1144; No. 19–6381. Brown v. Michigan, 589 U. S. 1144; No. 19–6382. Martinez-Covarrubias v. Barr, Attorney General, 589 U. S. 1144; et al., 589 U. S. 1123;

No. 19–6438. Tapia-Fierro v. Barr, Attorney General, No. 19–6439. Lopez v. MUFG Union Bank, N. A., et al.,

1291

March 23, 30, 2020 No. 19–6495. Schwertz v. Jennings, Warden, 589 U. S.

1148; No. 19–6498. Tootle v. Beaux Art Institute of Plastic Surgery et al., 589 U. S. 1148; No. 19–6541. Fortes v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services et al., 589 U. S. 1114; No. 19–6563. Wazney v. South Carolina, 589 U. S. 1149; No. 19–6575. Elliott v. Florida, 589 U. S. 1150; No. 19–6579. Smith v. North Carolina et al., 589 U. S.

1150; No. 19–6651. Thompson v. McGinley, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Coal Township, 589

No. 19–6694. Sundy v. Christian, Judge, et al., 589 U. S.

1181; No. 19–6698. Mtaza v. United States, 589 U. S. 1153; No. 19–6702. In re Calderon-Lopez, 589 U. S. 1167; No. 19–6887. In re Edmonds, 589 U. S. 1131; and No. 19–7047. In re Spencer, 589 U. S. 1178. Petitions for rehearing denied.

March 30, 2020 Certiorari Granted—Vacated and Remanded No. 18–1185. Charter Communications, Inc. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media et al.

remanded for further consideration in light of Comcast Corp. v.

National Assn. of African American-Owned Media, 589 U. S. 327 (2020). The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 915 F. 3d 617.

No. 18–1255. Angeles v. Barr, Attorney General. C. A.

5th Cir.; and No. 18–1454. Londono-Gonzalez v. Barr, Attorney Gen- eral. C. A. 5th Cir. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 898.

Certiorari granted, judgments vacated, and cases remanded for further consideration in light of Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589

1292

March 30, 2020

Certiorari Dismissed No. 19–7495. Badruddoza v. Department of Homeland Se- curity et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.

Miscellaneous Orders No. 19A914. Davis v. California. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App.

Dist., Div. 1. Application to recall remittitur, addressed to Jus- tice Thomas and referred to the Court, denied.

No. 19M114. O'Connor, as Next Friend and Guardian of O’Connor v. Wright et al.; No. 19M115. Smith v. Illinois Department of Transpor- tation; and No. 19M116. Hodge v. Genovese, Warden. Motions to di- rect the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.

No. 19M117. Juvenile Male v. United States. Motion for leave to fle petition for writ of certiorari under seal with appen- dix available for the public record denied.

No. 18–9526. McGirt v. Oklahoma. Ct. Crim. App. Okla.

[Certiorari granted, 589 U. S. 1119.] Motion of the parties, Mus- cogee (Creek) Nation, and the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument granted in part, and the time is divided as follows: 15 minutes for petitioner, 15 minutes for Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 15 minutes for respond- ent, and 15 minutes for the Solicitor General.

No. 19–23. Rockwood Casualty Insurance Co. v. Direc- tor, Ofce of Workers’ Compensation Programs, Depart- ment of Labor, et al., 589 U. S. 1058. Motion of respondent Tony Kourianos for attorney's fees and expenses granted. The Court approves attorney's fees of $22,106.25 and expenses of $1,531.53.

No. 19–7425. Hettinga v. Arcadia Management Services Co. Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist.; and No. 19–7607. Westrum v. National Labor Relations Board. C. A. 8th Cir. Motions of petitioners for leave to pro- ceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioners are allowed until April 20, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fees required

1293

March 30, 2020 by Rule 38(a) and to submit petitions in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

No. 19–7944. In re Beebe. Petition for writ of habeas cor- pus denied.

No. 19–7466. In re Calderon Lopez. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of mandamus dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8.

No. 19–7550. In re Guice. Petition for writ of mandamus and/or prohibition denied.

No. 19–7792.

In re Lopez. Petition for writ of prohibition denied.

Certiorari Granted No. 19–546. Brownback et al. v. King. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari granted. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 409.

Certiorari Denied No. 19–442. Perez Castillo v. Barr, Attorney General.

Appx. 501.

No. 19–557. McDonald v. United States. C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 78 M. J. 376.

No. 19–608. Elster et al. v. City of Seattle, Washing- ton. Sup. Ct. Wash. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 193 Wash. 2d 638, 444 P. 3d 590.

No. 19–645. Arizona v. Nunez-Diaz. Sup. Ct. Ariz. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 247 Ariz. 1, 444 P. 3d 250.

No. 19–661. Tun-Cos et al. v. Perrotte et al. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 922 F. 3d 514.

No. 19–667. Baker v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 923 F. 3d 390.

No. 19–718. King v. Brownback et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 409.

No. 19–784. University of Pennsylvania et al. v. Sweda et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 923

F. 3d 320.

1294

March 30, 2020

No. 19–795. Voorhees v. United States. C. A. Armed Forces. Certiorari denied. Reported below: ––– M. J. –––.

No. 19–797. City of St. Louis, Missouri, et al. v. Meier.

No. 19–798. Bay Point Properties, Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Commission et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 937 F. 3d 454.

No. 19–802. Ehrman v. Cox Communications, Inc., et al.

1223.

No. 19–903. Ramon Ochoa v. Levine et al. Super. Ct. Pa.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–904. Ramon Ochoa v. Levine et al. Super. Ct. Pa.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–905. Ramon Ochoa v. Levine et al. Super. Ct. Pa.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–919. Becker et al. v. Janvey et al. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 830.

No. 19–931. Friedheim v. Field. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 664.

No. 19–935. Leeper v. Hamilton County Coal, LLC, et al.

No. 19–936. Trentacosta v. Davis, Director, Texas De- partment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions

Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below:

782 Fed. Appx. 337.

No. 19–941. Raulerson v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classication Prison. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 928 F. 3d 987.

No. 19–943. Vazirabadi v. Denver Health and Hospital Authority et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re- ported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 681.

No. 19–945. Pardes v. Doan. Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3. Certiorari denied.

1295

March 30, 2020 No. 19–947. Xiu Jian Sun v. Chatigny. C. A. 2d Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–948. Rechtzigel v. Minnesota. Ct. App. Minn.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–951. Prasad v. General Electric Co. et al. C. A.

6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–955. Hirshauer v. AQ Holdings, LLC, et al. Ct.

Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 239 Md. App.

716 and 722.

No. 19–977. Alfonso Gomez et al. v. Barr, Attorney Gen- eral. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 516.

No. 19–981. English v. Perdue, Secretary of Agricul- ture. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 94.

No. 19–987. Winters, Judge, District Court of Louisi- ana, Fourth Judicial District, et al. v. Palowsky, Individu- ally and On Behalf of Alternative Environmental Solutions, Inc. Sup. Ct. La. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2018–1105 (La. 6/26/19), 285 So. 3d 466.

No. 19–1030. Bishop v. Palm Beach County, Florida. Cir.

Ct. Palm Beach County, Fla. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–1050. Brooks v. Colorado. Sup. Ct. Colo. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 448 P. 3d 310.

No. 19–1055. Moss v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 936 F. 3d 52.

No. 19–1071. Carlson v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 781.

No. 19–6062. Valdez v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 911 F. 3d 960.

No. 19–6389. Dennis v. Terris, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 927 F. 3d 955.

No. 19–6720. Myers v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 763.

1296

March 30, 2020

No. 19–6747. Martinez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 778.

No. 19–6757. Bowens v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 938 F. 3d 790.

No. 19–7071. Williams v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 931 F. 3d 570.

No. 19–7074. Stitt v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 780 Fed. Appx. 295.

No. 19–7097. Sanchez v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 7 Cal. 5th 14, 439 P. 3d 772.

No. 19–7391. Davis v. Tegley et al. C. A. 8th Cir. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7401. Hockaday v. Christner et al. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7402. Sanders v. Hennepin County Human Serv- ice and Public Health Department Child Support et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7405. Grant v. Williams. Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7406. Antonio Guzman v. Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institu- tions Division. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7418. Gifford v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 3d Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 281 So. 3d 484.

No. 19–7419. Hardin v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi- sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7421. Henderson v. Franklin et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 866.

No. 19–7423. Hamilton v. Ramey, Warden. Sup. Ct. Mo.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7424. Ham v. Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, et al. Ct. App. Cal., 6th App. Dist. Certio- rari denied.

1297

March 30, 2020 No. 19–7431. Loand v. Horton, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7441. Ridley v. Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County, Kansas, et al. C. A. 10th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 454.

No. 19–7442. Williams v. Texas. Ct. Crim. App. Tex. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 585 S. W. 3d 478.

No. 19–7444. Muhammad v. Kozelski et al. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 120.

No. 19–7445. Patterson v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 131.

No. 19–7448. Rydbom v. Ames, Superintendent, Mount Olive Correctional Complex. Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7452. Golin et ux. v. San Andreas Regional Cen- ter et al.; and No. 19–7453. Delaney v. San Andreas Regional Center et al. Ct. App. Cal., 1st App. Dist., Div. 1. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7459. Peyton v. Sims, Warden, et al. Ct. App. Ky.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 585 S. W. 3d 250.

No. 19–7461. Cheeks v. Joyner. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 796.

No. 19–7462. Bangura v. Pennsylvania et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 Fed. Appx. 142.

No. 19–7464. Davis v. Raymond Laborde Correctional Center et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 467.

No. 19–7465. Antonio Contreras v. Washington. Ct. App.

Wash. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 9 Wash. App. 2d 1028.

No. 19–7473. Brown v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7474. Banks v. California. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certio- rari denied.

1298

March 30, 2020

No. 19–7475. Ball v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7483. Washington v. Deleon et al. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7496. Stroner v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi- sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7499. Skipp v. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7500. Spencer v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7503. Bell v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 284 So. 3d 400.

No. 19–7505. Crump v. Beltz, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7511. Deville et al. v. Court of Appeal of Cali- fornia, Second Appellate District, et al. Sup. Ct. Cal.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7534. Scott v. Arkansas. Sup. Ct. Ark. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 Ark. 94, 571 S. W. 3d 451.

No. 19–7538. Carlson et vir v. Harpstead, Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Human Services, et al. Ct.

App. Minn. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7549. Ellis v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 784 Fed. Appx. 470.

No. 19–7560. Swain v. Florida Commission on Offender

780 Fed. Appx. 676.

No. 19–7570. Tierney-Young v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Security. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7576. Davis v. Angleton Independent School District et al. Ct. App. Tex., 14th Dist. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 582 S. W. 3d 474.

1299

March 30, 2020 No. 19–7578. Barry v. Warren, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7613. Smith-Jeter v. ArtSpace Everett Lofts Condominium Assn. et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 1009.

No. 19–7618. Woods v. Saul, Commissioner of Social Secu- rity. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7639. Harris v. Chapman, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7651. White v. Fox, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 462.

No. 19–7657. Sherrod v. Harkelroad et al. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 Fed. Appx. 377.

No. 19–7665. Chapman v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 352.

No. 19–7690. Short v. Superintendent, State Correc- tional Institution at Greensburg, et al. C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7694. Sanders v. Wisconsin. Ct. App. Wis. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 2019 WI App 52, 388 Wis. 2d 502, 933 N. W. 2d 670.

No. 19–7722. Watson v. Virginia (two judgments). Sup. Ct.

Va. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 297 Va. 355, 827 S. E.

2d 778 (frst judgment); 297 Va. 347, 827 S. E. 2d 782 (second judgment).

No. 19–7726. Watkins v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 940 F. 3d 152.

No. 19–7732. Hanks v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 795 Fed. Appx. 783.

No. 19–7735. Kearby v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 943 F. 3d 969.

No. 19–7761. Arteaga v. Clark, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

1300

March 30, 2020

No. 19–7765. Reyes v. Ercole, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari de- nied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 26.

No. 19–7768. Hersi v. May, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7771. Blanton v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 390.

No. 19–7773. Denton v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 944 F. 3d 170.

No. 19–7775. Isabella v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 918 F. 3d 816.

No. 19–7776. Marzouk v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 804.

No. 19–7777. Hoyle v. West Virginia. Sup. Ct. App. W. Va.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 242 W. Va. 599, 836 S. E.

2d 817.

No. 19–7781. Fortner v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 943 F. 3d 1007.

No. 19–7782. Mayer v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7784. Jenkins v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart- ment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7786. Teitelbaum v. Ohio. Ct. App. Ohio, 10th App.

Dist., Franklin County. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7796. Hawkins v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7797. Hubbard v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7798. Cantu Hernandez v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 849.

No. 19–7800. Bush v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 944 F. 3d 189.

1301

March 30, 2020 No. 19–7802. Ramirez Noria v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 945 F. 3d 847.

No. 19–7804. Flores v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7811. Crum v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 963.

No. 19–7812. Lajaward Khan v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 797 Fed. Appx. 546.

No. 19–7816. Gay v. Foster, Warden, et al. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 Fed. Appx. 748.

No. 19–7817. Acosta v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 96.

No. 19–7819. Dost v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 117.

No. 19–7820. Derby v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 783 Fed. Appx. 638.

No. 19–7823. Weaver v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (4th) 170462–U.

No. 19–7824. Fisher v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 943 F. 3d 809.

No. 19–7826. Miller v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7833. Rodriguez-Juarez v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 487.

No. 19–7843. Buck v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 469.

No. 19–7844. White, aka Hoffman v. United States. C. A.

8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 744 Fed. Appx. 990.

No. 19–7845. Weise v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7848. Adams v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 770 Fed. Appx. 124.

1302

March 30, 2020

No. 19–7853. Monzon-Silva v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 791 Fed. Appx. 671.

No. 19–7854. Overstreet v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 203.

No. 19–7855. Walker v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 470.

No. 19–7857. Adams v. Minnesota. Sup. Ct. Minn. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 936 N. W. 2d 326.

No. 19–7863. Knight v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–311. Cannon, Sheriff, Charleston County, South Carolina v. Seay. C. A. 4th Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.

Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kavanaugh

927 F. 3d 776.

No. 19–807. Bank Melli v. Bennett et al. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Justice Breyer took no part in the consider- ation or decision of this petition. Reported below: 778 Fed.

Appx. 541.

No. 19–950. Yung-Kai Lu v. University of Utah et al.

part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 790 Fed. Appx. 933.

No. 19–1060. Thomas v. New York. Ct. App. N. Y. Motion of Cato Institute for leave to fle brief as amicus curiae granted.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 34 N. Y. 3d 545, 144 N. E.

3d 970.

No. 19–1073. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Roche Molecu- lar Systems, Inc., et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below: 928 F. 3d 1340.

No. 19–7755. Patrick v. United States (Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 424); Nunn v. United States; Colasanti v. United States (787 Fed. Appx. 973); Gildersleeve v. United States

1303

March 30, April 2, 2020 (788 Fed. Appx. 478); and Beraldo v. United States. C. A.

9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg joins, dissenting. I dissent for the reasons set out in Brown v. United States, 586

U. S. 951 (2018) (Sotomayor, J., dissenting from denial of certio-

rari). Recognizing that the Court has repeatedly declined to grant certiorari on this important issue––whether the right recog- nized in Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. 591 (2015), applies to defendants sentenced under the mandatory Sentencing Guide- lines––I will cease noting my dissent in future petitions present- ing the question. I hope, however, that the Court will at some point reconsider its reluctance to answer it.

Rehearing Denied No. 19–5526. Lake v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs, 589 U. S. 1140; No. 19–5676. Jordan v. United States, 589 U. S. 1083; No. 19–6215. Haynes v. Assets Protection, Inc., 589 U. S.

1109; No. 19–6273. Lucas v. Florida, 589 U. S. 1143; No. 19–6328. Brown v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi- sion, 589 U. S. 1144; No. 19–6577. Smith v. Haynes, 589 U. S. 1150; No. 19–6578. Smith v. Washington, 589 U. S. 1150; No. 19–6598. Hercenberger v. Martin, 589 U. S. 1169; No. 19–6782. Mallard v. Next Day Temps et al., 589 U. S.

1183; and No. 19–6916. Jefferson v. Supreme Court of Georgia, 589

U. S. 1215. Petitions for rehearing denied.

April 2, 2020 Dismissals Under Rule 46 No. 18–1218. Buchwald Capital Advisors LLC, Litigation Trustee to the Greektown Litigation Trust v. Sault Ste.

Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians et al. C. A. 6th Cir.

1304

April 2, 6, 2020

Certiorari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46.1. Reported below: 917 F. 3d 451.

No. 19–7903. Brown v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer-

786 Fed. Appx. 501.

No. 19–7914. Moss v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio- rari dismissed under this Court's Rule 46. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 225.

April 6, 2020 Certiorari Dismissed No. 19–7573. Donahue v. Scalia, Secretary of Labor, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8. Reported below: 789 Fed. Appx. 324.

No. 19–7597. Wazney v. Nelson, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis de- nied, and certiorari dismissed. See this Court's Rule 39.8. Re- ported below: 773 Fed. Appx. 768.

Miscellaneous Orders.

No. 19M119. Walsh v. United States. Motion for leave to fle petition for writ of certiorari with supplemental appendix under seal granted.

No. 19M120. Rebenstorf v. Grant; No. 19M121. Crenshaw v. Jones, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections; No. 19M122. Warren v. Ormond, Warden, et al.; and No. 19M123. Lowery v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi- sion. Motions to direct the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.

No. 19M124. Armstrong v. Pennsylvania et al.; No. 19M125. Armstrong v. United States et al.; No. 19M126. Armstrong v. Amtrak Police; and No. 19M127. Armstrong v. GEICO Insurance. Motions to direct the Clerk to fle petitions for writs of certiorari out of time under this Court's Rule 14.5 denied.

1305

April 6, 2020 No. 19–7894. In re Renchenski; and No. 19–8026. In re Hampton. Petitions for writs of habeas corpus denied.

No. 19–7884. In re Frye. Petition for writ of mandamus denied.

Certiorari Denied No. 19–573. Al-Amin v. Ward, Commissioner, Georgia De- partment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 1291.

No. 19–659. Salgado v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 929 F. 3d 1293.

No. 19–680. Sealey et al. v. Gilliam et al. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 216.

No. 19–690. Neville v. Dhillon, Chair, Equal Employ- ment Opportunity Commission, et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 280.

No. 19–710. Connecticut Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, dba Total Wine & More v. Seagull, Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, et al. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 932 F. 3d 22.

No. 19–956. Craig et al. v. O’Kelley, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Turner, et al.

Appx. 888.

No. 19–986. Vosburgh et al. v. Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake Central School District et al. C. A. 2d Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 778 Fed. Appx. 54.

No. 19–990. Southern Illinois Storm Shelters v.

4SEMO.COM, Inc. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 905.

No. 19–994. Hill v. Johnson et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 787 Fed. Appx. 604.

No. 19–996. Waters v. Georgia. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.

1306

April 6, 2020

No. 19–998. Cook, Individually and as Natural Mother to Cook, et al. v. Hopkins et al. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–1003. Kinuthia v. Velarde, Acting Chief, Adminis- trative Appeals Ofce, et al. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–1072. Rothstein v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 939 F. 3d 1286.

No. 19–1075. Copeland v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–1102. Small v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 944 F. 3d 490.

No. 19–1103. INO Therapeutics LLC et al. v. Praxair Distribution Inc. et al. C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 1001.

No. 19–6410. Rager v. Augustine, Warden, et al. C. A.

11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 760 Fed. Appx.

947.

No. 19–6501. Felicianosoto v. United States. C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 934 F. 3d 783.

No. 19–6800. Mitchell v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 227.

No. 19–6967. Boyd et al. v. California Public Utilities Commission et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re- ported below: 922 F. 3d 929.

No. 19–7081. Adebowale v. Wolf, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 510.

No. 19–7086. Prezioso v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 782 Fed. Appx. 586.

No. 19–7088. Cortez-Rogel v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 761.

No. 19–7102. Mendez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 745.

1307

April 6, 2020 No. 19–7104. Pacheco-Astrudillo v. United States. C. A.

5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 766.

No. 19–7112. Galindo-Serrano v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 925 F. 3d 40.

No. 19–7131. Hanna v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7493. Kirvin v. Grant et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7513. Smith v. Clarke, Director, Virginia Depart- ment of Corrections. Sup. Ct. Va. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7529. Williams v. Litton Loan Services et al.

Appx. 819.

No. 19–7532. Welsh v. Florida. Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7537. Spice v. Michigan. Ct. App. Mich. Certio- rari denied.

No. 19–7541. Hurles v. Shinn, Director, Arizona Depart- ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7542. Pelmear et al. v. O’Connor et al. C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7545. Palmer v. Inch, Secretary, Florida Depart- ment of Corrections, et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 640.

No. 19–7546. Jorge v. Florida et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7554. Hillygus v. Doherty et al. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7556. Jacobs v. Maricopa Integrated Health Care System. Ct. App. Ariz. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7559. Jackson v. Department of Housing and Urban Development et al. C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

1308

April 6, 2020

No. 19–7563. Speed v. Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

No. 19–7582. Arellano v. Paramo, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7583. Byrd v. Boutte, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7591. Payne v. Mangum. C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 187.

No. 19–7595. Major v. Baker, Warden. Ct. App. Nev.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7600. Sundy v. Friendship Pavilion Acquisition Co., LLC. Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7605. Kane v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 210 A. 3d 324.

No. 19–7609. Mauricio Castillo v. Baca, Warden. Ct.

App. Nev. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7628. Guyn v. Kent, Warden. C. A. 5th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7644. Jones v. Grifth, Warden. C. A. 8th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7660. West v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 38.

No. 19–7666. Woods v. Joyner, Warden. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 823.

No. 19–7676. Jackson v. Florida. Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 4th Dist. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 284 So. 3d 515.

No. 19–7679. Brownlee v. Hearns et al. C. A. 3d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 775 Fed. Appx. 35.

No. 19–7708. Aljindi v. United States et al. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7723. Brammer v. Madden, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

1309

April 6, 2020 No. 19–7734. Dennis v. Johnson, Administrator, New Jer- sey State Prison, et al. C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7740. Bell v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Certio- rari denied. Reported below: 785 Fed. Appx. 140.

No. 19–7759. Emers v. Illinois. App. Ct. Ill., 4th Dist.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 2019 IL App (4th) 170254–U.

No. 19–7762. Amerson et al. v. Atlas Law Firm, P. C., et al. Ct. App. Colo. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7791. Jackson v. Pennsylvania. Super. Ct. Pa.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 220 A. 3d 641.

No. 19–7813. Jamerson v. Lewis, Warden. Sup. Ct. Mo.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7830. Pantaleon-Aviles v. United States. C. A.

11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 796 Fed. Appx.

624.

No. 19–7835. Rodriguez v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7836. Salahuddin v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 930 F. 3d 410.

No. 19–7838. Shockey v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 941 F. 3d 282.

No. 19–7839. Sanchez v. United States. C. A. 5th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 492.

No. 19–7851. Martinez-Alvarado v. United States. C. A.

11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 793 Fed. Appx.

829.

No. 19–7869. Wilson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 776 Fed. Appx. 190.

No. 19–7873. Allen v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7875. Gay v. Daffenbach, Warden, et al. C. A.

10th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 781 Fed. Appx.

732.

1310

April 6, 2020

No. 19–7876. Richardson v. United States. C. A. 4th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 796 Fed. Appx. 795.

No. 19–7881. Farrington v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 795 Fed. Appx. 404.

No. 19–7886. Mahon v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir. Cer- tiorari denied.

No. 19–7887. Juvenile Female v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 786 Fed. Appx. 313.

No. 19–7896. Hughes v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 798 Fed. Appx. 388.

No. 19–7898. Murphy v. United States. C. A. 3d Cir. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 792 Fed. Appx. 232.

No. 19–7909. Kilmartin v. United States. C. A. 1st Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 944 F. 3d 315.

No. 19–7911. Cornelius v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 789 Fed. Appx. 70.

No. 19–7916. Gelazela v. United States. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 898.

No. 19–7917. Feldman v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 931 F. 3d 1245.

No. 19–7934. Betts v. United Airlines, Inc. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 768 Fed. Appx. 577.

No. 19–7940. Fernandez Morales v. United States. C. A.

11th Cir. Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7942. Parsons v. Blades, Warden. C. A. 9th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7949. Devore v. United States. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7950. Valentine v. Nebraska. Ct. App. Neb. Cer- tiorari denied. Reported below: 27 Neb. App. 725, 936 N. W.

2d 16.

No. 19–7967. Durant v. Lawrence, Warden. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 19–7970. Shade v. Washburn, Warden. C. A. 6th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

1311

April 6, 2020 No. 18–1455. Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority et al. C. A. D. C.

Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in

the consideration or decision of this petition. Reported below:

897 F. 3d 314.

Statement of Justice Gorsuch, with whom Justice Thomas joins, respecting the denial of certiorari.

Because the full Court is unable to hear this case, it makes a poor candidate for our review. But for that complication, how- ever, our intervention and a reversal would be warranted for reasons admirably explained by Judge Griffth in his dissent below and by Judge Hardiman in an opinion for the Third Circuit. See 910 F. 3d 1248, 1250–1254 (CADC 2018) (Griffth, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc); Northeastern Pa. Freethought Society v. Lackawanna Transit System, 938 F. 3d 424, 435–437 (CA3 2019) (noting disagreement with D. C. Circuit).

At Christmastime a few years ago, the Catholic Church sought to place advertisements on the side of local buses in Washington,

D. C. The proposed image was a simple one—a silhouette of

three shepherds and sheep, along with the words “Find the Per- fect Gift” and a church website address. No one disputes that, if Macy's had sought to place the same advertisement with its own website address, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) would have accepted the business gladly.

Indeed, WMATA admits that it views Christmas as having “ `a secular half ' ” and “ `a religious half,' ” and it has shown no hesita- tion in taking secular Christmas advertisements. Pet. for Cert.

1. Still, when it came to the church's proposal, WMATA balked.

That is viewpoint discrimination by a governmental entity and a violation of the First Amendment. In fact, this Court has al- ready rejected no-religious-speech policies materially identical to WMATA's on no fewer than three occasions over the last three decades. See Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533

U. S. 98 (2001); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of

Va., 515 U. S. 819 (1995); Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 508 U. S. 384 (1993). In each case, the government opened a forum to discussion of a particular subject but then sought to ban discussion of that subject from a religious viewpoint. What WMATA did here is no different.

WMATA's response only underscores its error. WMATA sug- gests that its conduct comported with our decision in Rosenberger

1312

April 6, 2020

because it banned religion as a subject rather than discriminated between religious and nonreligious viewpoints. But that reply rests on a misunderstanding of Rosenberger. There, the Court recognized that religion is not just a subject isolated to itself, but often also “a specifc premise, a perspective, a standpoint from which a variety of subjects may be discussed and considered.” 515 U. S., at 831. That means the government may minimize religious speech incidentally by reasonably limiting a forum like bus advertisement space to subjects where religious views are unlikely or rare. But once the government allows a subject to be discussed, it cannot silence religious views on that topic. See Good News Club, 533 U. S., at 110–112. So the government may designate a forum for art or music, but it cannot then forbid discussion of Michelangelo's David or Handel's Messiah. And once the government declares Christmas open for commentary, it can hardly turn around and mute religious speech on a subject that so naturally invites it.

That's not to say WMATA lacks a choice. The Constitution requires the government to respect religious speech, not to maxi- mize advertising revenues. So if WMATA fnds messages like the one here intolerable, it may close its buses to all advertise- ments. More modestly, it might restrict advertisement space to subjects where religious viewpoints are less likely to arise with- out running afoul of our free speech precedents. The one thing it cannot do is what it did here—permit a subject sure to inspire religious views, one that even WMATA admits is “half ” religious in nature, and then suppress those views. The First Amendment requires governments to protect religious viewpoints, not single them out for silencing.

No. 19–446. VF Jeanswear LP v. Equal Employment Op- portunity Commission. C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied. Re- ported below: 769 Fed. Appx. 477.

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

This case presents the question whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may continue to investigate an employer's purported wrongdoing after issuing a right-to-sue no- tice to a private party who, in turn, has initiated her own liti- gation. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have determined that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, grants the

1313 1312

Thomas, J., dissenting EEOC that power. See EEOC v. Union Pacifc R. Co., 867 F. 3d 843, 848 (CA7 2017); EEOC v. Federal Express Corp., 558 F. 3d 842, 851–852 (CA9 2009). The Fifth Circuit, on the other hand, has concluded that the plain text of Title VII prohibits such inves- tigations. See EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 103 F. 3d 462, 469 (1997).

Though this split in authority is shallow, it directly implicates the EEOC's core investigative powers. If the Fifth Circuit is correct that issuing a right-to-sue notice terminates the EEOC's ability to investigate, then the EEOC may be wielding ultra vires power, impermissibly subjecting employers to time-consuming in- vestigations. I would grant certiorari to determine whether the agency is operating within the confnes of the authority granted by Congress.

A preliminary analysis of the text suggests that the EEOC may lack the authority to continue an investigation after it has issued a right-to-sue notice. The basic provisions governing the EEOC's role in investigating discrimination claims are found in

42 U. S. C. § 2000e–5. As relevant here, the EEOC's duties are

triggered when it receives “a charge . . . fled by or on behalf of a person claiming to be aggrieved.” § 2000e–5(b); University of Pa. v. EEOC, 493 U. S. 182, 190 (1990). The EEOC must provide notice to the employer “within ten days, and shall make an in- vestigation thereof.” § 2000e–5(b) (emphasis added). “If the Commission determines after such investigation that there is rea- sonable cause to believe that the charge is true, the Commission shall endeavor to eliminate any such alleged unlawful employment practice by informal methods of conference, conciliation, and per- suasion.” Ibid. (emphasis added). Otherwise, it will dismiss the charge. Ibid. “The Commission shall make its determination on reasonable cause as promptly as possible and, so far as practicable, not later than one hundred and twenty days from the fling of the charge.” Ibid. But “[i]f a charge fled with the Commission pursuant to subsection (b) . . . is dismissed by the Commission, or if within one hundred and eighty days from the fling of such charge . . .

the Commission has not fled a civil action under this section[,] . . . or the Commission has not entered into a conciliation agree- ment to which the person aggrieved is a party, the Commission

1314

Thomas, J., dissenting

. . . shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge.” § 2000e–(5)(f)(1); see also Fort Bend County v. Davis, 587 U. S. 541 (2019).

Regardless of how the EEOC may approach this process in practice, these statutory provisions set out a clear timetable and a sequential series of steps for the EEOC to follow. After giving notice to the employer, it must engage in an investigation that comes to a defnitive end either because the EEOC has entered into a conciliation process or because it has dismissed the charge.

Further, the EEOC must issue the right-to-sue notice after 180 days—60 days after the timeline contemplated by the statute for a reasonable cause determination, which triggers dismissal of a charge or conciliation efforts. Thus, at frst glance, it appears that the more natural reading of these provisions is that Con- gress “expected the EEOC to complete investigations within 120 days[, l]eaving an additional 60 days for the EEOC to determine whether suit should be fled.” Hearst, 103 F. 3d, at 467.

Whatever the correct interpretation of the text, however, the Ninth Circuit's approach in Federal Express, 558 F. 3d 842, is highly problematic. The Ninth Circuit began by asserting that it was bound to enforce an EEOC subpoena if the agency's juris- diction was “plausible” and not “plainly lacking.” Id., at 848 (in- ternal quotation marks omitted). Next, the court noted that the EEOC has, through regulation, interpreted its own statutory au- thority to allow the agency to continue processing a charge after it has issued a right-to-sue notice. Id., at 850; see 29 CFR § 1601.28(a)(3) (2019). To cap off its analysis, the Ninth Circuit gave weight to the fact that the EEOC had further interpreted its own regulation allowing “ `further processing [of] the charge' ” after issuing notice to “includ[e] further investigation.” Federal Express, 558 F. 3d, at 850 (citing EEOC Compliance Manual § 6.4 (2006)). Thus, under this dual layer of agency interpretation, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Title VII permitted the EEOC to continue with its investigation after issuing a right-to-sue notice.

The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that its reading conficted with the Fifth Circuit's decision in Hearst, 103 F. 3d 462. But it dis- agreed with the Fifth Circuit primarily because it viewed Hearst as conficting with the EEOC's role in vindicating the public's

1315 1312

Thomas, J., dissenting interest in eradicating employment discrimination.* Federal Ex- press, 558 F. 3d, at 852.

The Ninth Circuit's analysis contains at least four faws. Most egregiously, the Ninth Circuit failed to consider the most useful, and perhaps dispositive, evidence—the text of Title VII itself.

Nor did it perform anything remotely resembling an independent assessment of that text. Even under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), courts are instructed to engage in their own analysis of the stat- ute to determine whether any gap has been left for the agency to fll. Id., at 843, n. 9; see also INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480

U. S. 421, 447–448 (1987). The Ninth Circuit, by contrast, by-

passed the statutory text entirely.

Second, the Ninth Circuit's approach to jurisdiction was highly suspect, if not outright erroneous. As the Ninth Circuit has else- where recognized, all administrative agencies “are creatures of statute, bound to the confnes of the statute that created them.” United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Lee, 641 F. 3d 1126, 1135 (2011). This fundamental principle applies not only to sub- stantive areas regulated by an agency but also to the agency's underlying jurisdiction. There is no basis for applying a “plainly lacking” standard when assessing the authority of an agency to act, let alone to issue wide-ranging subpoenas that consume the time and resources of employers.

Third, reliance on and deference to the EEOC's regulation also seems inappropriate under this Court's Chevron framework. The regulation was originally promulgated before this Court's decision in Chevron. See 29 CFR § 1601.28(a)(3) (1978). The associated rulemaking contains no indication that the agency invoked its interpretive authority or even believed it was interpreting the statute at all. See 42 Fed. Reg. 42025, 42030–42031, 47831 (1977); see also 37 Fed. Reg. 9214–9220 (1973). Thus, it is hardly self- evident that, even under our precedents, Chevron deference should apply. See Barnhart v. Walton, 535 U. S. 212, 222 (2002). *The Ninth Circuit also relied in part on this Court's decision in EEOC

v. Waffe House, Inc., 534 U. S. 279 (2002), where this Court held that an

employee's agreement to arbitrate employment disputes did not prevent the EEOC from pursuing victim-specifc relief in court. But that decision conficts with the principle that the EEOC takes a plaintiff as it fnds him.

See id., at 303–312 (Thomas, J., dissenting).

1316

Thomas, J., dissenting

Last but not least, the Ninth Circuit's invocation of the EEOC Compliance Manual not only assumes that the regulation is ambig- uous—itself a dubious proposition—but also is premised on so- called Auer deference to the agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452 (1997).

This doctrine has rightly fallen out of favor in recent years, as it directly conficts with the constitutional duty of a judge to faith- fully and independently interpret the law. See Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U. S. 558, 592 (2019) (Gorsuch, J., concurring in judgment); Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., 575 U. S. 92, 112 (2015) (Thomas, J., concurring in judgment).

Leaving the Seventh and Ninth Circuit's highly questionable interpretation undisturbed has wide-reaching ramifcations for employers subject to litigation in those Circuits. In this case, for instance, a former salesperson employed by petitioner VF Jeans- wear LP fled a charge with the EEOC, alleging that she was demoted on the basis of her sex and age in violation of Title VII. § 2000e–2(a)(1). After she fled a complaint in state court, the EEOC issued her a right-to-sue notice, indicating that it would not fnish processing her charge within the allotted 180-day time- frame. The former employee proceeded to litigate her claims in federal court, and the EEOC did not intervene.

Meanwhile, the EEOC continued with its own, far broader in- vestigation, including a subpoena directing VF Jeanswear to “[s]ubmit an electronic database identifying all supervisors, man- agers, and executive employees at VF Jeanswear's facilities dur- ing the relevant period,” including information such as the “posi- tion(s) held and date in each position” and, “if no longer employed, [the] date of termination, and reason for termination.” 2017 WL 2861182, *2 (D Ariz., July 5, 2017). Thus, the EEOC not only subjected VF Jeanswear to a second investigation, but it also issued a subpoena covering material that departed signifcantly from the employee's original, individualized allegations. As the District Court noted in refusing to enforce the subpoena, the EEOC sought information regarding positions for which the em- ployee never applied, and amounted to “a companywide and na- tionwide subpoena for discriminatory promotion, a discriminatory practice not affecting the charging party.” Id., at *6.

1317

April 6, 2020 Because the textual argument against the EEOC's power to issue this subpoena seems strong, and the argument supporting it particularly weak, I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.

No. 19–678. United States ex rel. Schneider v. JPMor- gan Chase Bank, N. A., et al. C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

No. 19–726. Jones et al. v. Lamkin, Individually and in His Ofcial Capacity as Marshal of the Civil and Magis- trate Court of Richmond County, Georgia, et al. C. A.

11th Cir. Motion of National Fraternal Order of Police for leave to fle brief as amicus curiae granted. Certiorari denied. Re- ported below: 781 Fed. Appx. 865.

No. 19–6156. Halprin v. Davis, Director, Texas Depart- ment of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Divi- sion. C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 777 Fed. Appx. 758.

Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting the denial of certiorari.

The facts underlying this petition are deeply disturbing. I write to explain why I nevertheless do not dissent from the denial of certiorari.

In December 2000, petitioner Randy Ethan Halprin and six others escaped from a Texas prison and robbed a sporting-goods store. During the robbery, Offcer Aubrey Hawkins responded to a distress call and was fatally shot. The State of Texas tried Halprin and the other escapees separately for their roles in Offcer Hawkins' death. Presiding over most of those trials, including Halprin's, was Judge Vickers Cunningham.

In 2003, a jury found Halprin guilty of capital murder and recommended the death penalty, and then-Judge Cunningham an- nounced a death sentence. For the next decade, Halprin unsuc- cessfully sought appellate and collateral relief in the state courts.

In 2014, he petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. § 2254, to no avail.

Years after the trial, Cunningham—no longer a judge—ran for a position as a county commissioner. In May 2018, a news outlet published that Cunningham had created a living trust for his

1318

Statement of Sotomayor, J.

children that would have withheld payments had they married (Halprin is Jewish, a fact that featured nonwhite non-Christians. prominently at his trial.) A former campaign staffer of Cunning- ham's also relayed to the news outlet that the former judge used the acronym “T.N.D.”—short for “Typical N*** Deals”— to refer to criminal cases involving black defendants. Record 19–70016.1120.

These developments prompted Halprin's counsel to investigate whether Cunningham had harbored bias against Halprin. Wit- nesses recounted that, shortly after Halprin's trial, Cunningham had referred to Halprin with derogatory terms like “f ***n' Jew”—and that the former judge had also referred to Halprin's accomplices using similar slurs. Id., at 19–70016.1064. Halprin's counsel further discovered that Cunningham had told cam- paign staffers that he sought public offce to “save” his city from “ `n***s, wetbacks, Jews, and dirty Catholics.' ” Id., at 19–70016.1235.

On May 17, 2019, presented with this newly discovered evi- dence, Halprin fled another § 2254 petition in Federal District Court. He asserted that Cunningham's bias constituted struc- tural error depriving Halprin of his constitutional right to a fair trial. Halprin also requested that the federal court stay the pro- ceedings so that he could exhaust his claim in state court, and then fled an application for habeas relief in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

(That court has since stayed Halprin's execu- tion to allow a trial court to consider the claim of judicial bias.)

Meanwhile, the District Court transferred Halprin's recent § 2254 petition to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to determine whether it was an unauthorized “second or successive” petition. See 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b).* The Fifth Circuit recog- nized that Halprin had cited evidence of “horrible” “racism and bigotry” that, if true, would be “completely inappropriate for a

“A claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was not presented in a prior application shall be dismissed unless . . . (i) the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence; and (ii) the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be suffcient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfnder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.”

1319 1317

Statement of Sotomayor, J. judge.” In re Halprin, 788 Fed. Appx. 941, 942, n. 2 (2019) (per curiam). Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals held, Halprin's fling was a second or successive petition under federal law be- cause, “even if ” Cunningham's prejudice were “unknown to Hal- prin at the time,” the judicial-bias claim would have been “ripe” during the jury trial. Id., at 943. The Fifth Circuit then con- cluded that Halprin could not satisfy § 2244(b)'s “ `strict' ” require- ments for authorizing a second or successive § 2254 application.

Id., at 945. Granting Halprin's argument that judicial bias is “structural error” warranting an automatic retrial, the Fifth Cir- cuit still found that Halprin could not show “by clear and convinc- ing evidence that, absent such bias, no reasonable factfnder would have found Halprin guilty of the underlying offense.” Id., at 944–945.

In this Court, Halprin contests whether his recent federal peti- tion is “second or successive” at all. Drawing on Panetti v. Quar- terman, 551 U. S. 930 (2007), and Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U. S.

320 (2010), Halprin contends that his federal habeas claim cannot count as “second or successive” under § 2244(b) because he never “ `had a full and fair opportunity to raise the claim in [his] prior application' ” to the Federal District Court. Pet. for Cert. 14.

Halprin also urges the Court to exercise its “traditional equitable authority” to excuse defaulted claims that do not satisfy § 2244(b)'s literal text. Id., at 15 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Despite these potent arguments, the Court declines to grant certiorari. I do not dissent for two reasons. First, state-court proceedings are underway to address—and, if appropriate, to rem- edy—Halprin's assertion that insidious racial and religious bias infected his trial. For its part, the State represents that “Hal- prin has not been deprived of an opportunity to bring his claim in state court” because the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals re- cently “stayed his execution and remanded his judicial bias claim to the trial court for review.” Brief in Opposition 21–22; see also id., at 28 (“[A]venues of relief remain, including state habeas proceedings”). Thus, were the Texas courts to agree with Hal- prin on the merits of his judicial-bias claim, this petition for a writ of certiorari about a federal procedural provision would be- come moot.

Second, this Court's denial “carries with it no implication what- ever regarding the Court's views on the merits of ” Halprin's claims. Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U. S. 912,

1320

April 6, 15, 2020

919 (1950) (Frankfurter, J., respecting denial of certiorari).

Though the Fifth Circuit has already interpreted § 2244 to deny Halprin authorization to fle a § 2254 petition, this Court's denial of certiorari does not prevent Halprin from seeking direct review from a constitutional ruling by the Texas courts. Nor does it preclude Halprin from seeking an original writ of habeas corpus under this Court's Rule 20. * * * “[T]he Due Process Clause clearly requires a `fair trial in a fair tribuna[l]' before a judge with no actual bias against the defend- ant.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U. S. 899, 904–905 (1997) (citation omitted). I trust that the Texas courts considering Halprin's case are more than capable of guarding this fundamental guarantee.

Rehearing Denied No. 19–6427. Smith v. Chapdelaine, Warden, et al., 589

No. 19–6762. Wimberley v. Sacramento, 589 U. S. 1183; No. 19–6863. In re Bonnell, 589 U. S. 1201; No. 19–6931. Johnson v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, L. L. P., 589 U. S. 1215; and No. 19–7095. Smith v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, 589 U. S. 1255.

Petitions for rehearing denied.

No. 19–6846. Riley v. Metzger, Warden, et al., 589 U. S.

1160; and No. 19–6856. Riley v. Delaware, 589 U. S. 1160. Petitions for rehearing denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consid- eration or decision of these petitions.

April 15, 2020 Miscellaneous Order In light of the ongoing public health concerns relating to

IT IS ORDERED that with respect to every document fled in a case prior to a ruling on a petition for a writ of certiorari or petition for an extraordinary writ, or a decision to set an appeal for argument, a single paper copy of the document, formatted on 8½ × 11 inch paper, may be fled. The document may be format-

1321

April 15, 2020 ted under the standards set forth in this Court's Rule 33.2, or under the standards set forth in Rule 33.1 but printed on 8½ × 11 inch paper. The Court may later request that a document initially submitted on 8½ × 11 inch paper be submitted in book- let format.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following types of docu- ments should not be fled in paper form if they are submitted through the Court's electronic fling system: (1) motions for an extension of time under Rule 30.4; (2) waivers of the right to respond to a petition under Rule 15.5; (3) blanket consents to the fling of amicus briefs under Rules 37.2(a) and 37.3(a); and (4) motions to delay distribution of a cert. petition under the Court's order of March 19, 2020. Notwithstanding Rule 34.6 and para- graph 9 of the Guidelines for the Submission of Documents to the Supreme Court's Electronic Filing System, these enumerated flings should be fled electronically in cases governed by Rule 34.6, although other types of documents in those cases should still be fled in paper form only.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, notwithstanding Rule 29.3, parties may be relieved of the obligation to effect service of paper versions of flings upon other parties if they agree to electronic service; parties are strongly encouraged to use electronic service if feasible.

These modifcations will remain in effect until further order of the Court.