Listen to the Cases Argued This Week: Hughes v. Northwestern University, Patel v. Garland, United States v. Taylor, Carson v. Makin, Shinn v. Ramirez - gconk@fordham.edu - Fordham University Mail

Listen to the Cases Argued This Week: Hughes v. Northwestern University, Patel v. Garland, United States v. Taylor, Carson v. Makin, Shinn v. Ramirez - gconk@fordham.edu - Fordham University Mail

The Court heard oral arguments in the following cases this week:

Hughes v. Northwestern UniversityPatel v. GarlandUnited States v. TaylorCarson v. MakinShinn v. Ramirez

Hughes v. Northwestern University (Argued 12/6/2021) Are allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment products or services sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)? Advocates: David C. Frederick, for the Petitioners Michael R. Huston, for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Petitioners Gregory G. Garre, for the Respondents  Patel v. Garland (Argued 12/6/2021) Does 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preserve the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief? Advocates: Mark C. Fleming, for the Petitioners Austin L. Raynor, for the Respondent supporting reversal Taylor A.R. Meehan, for the judgment below  United States v. Taylor (Argued 12/7/2021) Does the definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) exclude attempted Hobbs Act robbery, which may be completed through an attempted threat alone? Advocates: Rebecca Taibleson, for the Petitioner Michael R. Dreeben, for the Respondent  Carson v. Makin (Argued 12/8/2021) Does a state law prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution? Advocates: Michael Bindas, for the Petitioner Christopher C. Taub, for the Respondent Malcolm L. Stewart, for the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting the Respondent  Shinn v. Ramirez (Argued 12/8/2021) Does the Court’s decision in Martinez v. Ryan render the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act inapplicable to a federal court’s merits review of a claim for habeas relief? Advocates: Brunn W. Roysden III, for the Petitioner Robert M. Loeb, for the Respondent