Ahead of planned pro-European protests in around 20 Slovak cities Friday, the pro-Moscow ruling coalition on Thursday used an emergency meeting of the country’s Security Council to address what it alleged was an “organized escalation” of domestic tensions directed from abroad.
“The situation in Slovakia is serious,” said President Peter Pellegrini, former head of the Hlas ruling coalition party, and shows “signs of a purposeful and organized escalation of tensions with the aim of increasing expressions of dissent even beyond peaceful protests.”
Prime Minister Robert Fico, who visited President Vladimir Putin in Moscow before Christmas and has defended Russia’s interests within the European Union, claimed the unrest was “financed from abroad and connected to the Slovak opposition.”
“It’s an attempt to organize a coup,” he said.
Pellegrini and Fico both said Friday’s protests would be allowed to go ahead, but warned against violence.
Since being reelected to a fourth term as prime minister in the fall of 2023, Fico has formed a mischief-making pro-Moscow duo in Central Europe with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, and has U-turned on Slovakia’s pro-West orientation.
Michal Šimečka, chair of the leading opposition party Progressive Slovakia, delivered what he termed a “generational indictment” of Fico’s 12 total years in office. | Jakub Gavlak/EPA-EFE
On Jan. 17, Tibor Gašpar, a member of parliament with Fico’s Smer party, told the STVR public broadcaster that “the door must remain open to a situation when we might eventually consider such a drastic solution as leaving the EU.”
Days later, during a parliamentary debate on a vote of no confidence in the Fico government, Michal Šimečka, chair of the leading opposition party Progressive Slovakia, delivered what he termed a “generational indictment” of Fico’s 12 total years in office.
“You want to leave the door open to departing the European Union,” he mused. “Perhaps Mr. Gašpar has inadvertently revealed something that Smer talks about quietly and confidentially.”
In response, Fico cited what he claimed was a classified report from the country’s SIS intelligence service, which claimed to have uncovered “serious information regarding a long-term organized influence operation with the aim of destabilizing Slovakia.”
Peter Pellegrini and Fico both said Friday’s protests would be allowed to go ahead, but warned against violence. | Jarek Praszkiewicz/EPA-EFE
Ondrej Dostál, an MP with the liberal opposition Freedom and Solidarity party, said after the session the report had contained no classified information. “It concerned some planned non-violent protests in support of democracy and the rule of law in Slovakia,” he said.
But Fico doubled down Wednesday, claiming at a press conference that “a group of experts is working on Slovak territory, having actively participated in … the [2013-14] uprising in Ukraine … I especially welcome the decision of [United States] President [Donald] Trump to put an end to the financing of these senseless activities in Europe that seriously endanger democracy.”
Fico’s opponents reckon that is nonsense.
“The whole thing is crazy,” said Ivan Mikloš, head of the MESA 10 think tank and the architect of Slovakia’s economic reforms as deputy prime minister and then finance minister from 1998 to 2006.
Mikloš told POLITICO that Fico’s pro-Moscow stance and recent saber-rattling over threats to the state were disingenuous. “Global developments have played into his hand, and he has used them, but they aren’t the primary force driving his politics,” he said. “It’s just cynical pragmatism. He can’t maintain power except by mobilizing anti-system forces. And he needs to hold onto power primarily to guarantee immunity for his people.”
As for Gašpar’s remarks about keeping the door open to an EU exit, Mikloš predicted the MP had been “just testing the terrain, because the EU is and will remain an obstacle to Fico in his attempts for an authoritarian takeover of the country.”
In a Jan. 20 column for a Slovak daily, Mikloš wrote that “despite our membership in NATO and the EU, our freedom, prosperity, independence and territorial integrity are in greater peril now than [even] in the 1990s,” when Slovakia was dropped from the list of front-runners for EU and NATO membership.
“See you on Friday,” he wrote of the planned protests. “We need each other.”
<p>He said it should not take months or decades to certify a presidential candidate's credentials.</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.arise.tv/atiku-on-tinubus-csu-certificate-nigeria-is-bigger-than-any-of-us-the-reputation-of-our-country-is-at-stake/">Atiku on Tinubu’s CSU Certificate: Nigeria Is Bigger Than Any of Us, the Reputation of Our Country Is At Stake </a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.arise.tv">Arise News</a>.</p>
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/HcOwuZFAmHbl2e9HNmILVHn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="In lawsuit originally filed by J.D. Vance, GOP asks court to overrule limit on campaign spending" title="In lawsuit originally filed by J.D. Vance, GOP asks court to overrule limit on campaign spending"> <img width="150" height="144" src="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Banner141203-150x144.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail wp-post-image" alt="In lawsuit originally filed by J.D. Vance, GOP asks court to overrule limit on campaign spending" title="In lawsuit originally filed by J.D. Vance, GOP asks court to overrule limit on campaign spending" style="float:right;" decoding="async" /><p><a class="a2a_button_facebook" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/facebook?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Fin-lawsuit-originally-filed-by-j-d-vance-gop-asks-court-to-overrule-limit-on-campaign-spending%2F&linkname=In%20lawsuit%20originally%20filed%20by%20J.D.%20Vance%2C%20GOP%20asks%20court%20to%20overrule%20limit%20on%20campaign%20spending" title="Facebook" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_linkedin" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/linkedin?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Fin-lawsuit-originally-filed-by-j-d-vance-gop-asks-court-to-overrule-limit-on-campaign-spending%2F&linkname=In%20lawsuit%20originally%20filed%20by%20J.D.%20Vance%2C%20GOP%20asks%20court%20to%20overrule%20limit%20on%20campaign%20spending" title="LinkedIn" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_twitter" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/twitter?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Fin-lawsuit-originally-filed-by-j-d-vance-gop-asks-court-to-overrule-limit-on-campaign-spending%2F&linkname=In%20lawsuit%20originally%20filed%20by%20J.D.%20Vance%2C%20GOP%20asks%20court%20to%20overrule%20limit%20on%20campaign%20spending" title="Twitter" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_email" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/email?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Fin-lawsuit-originally-filed-by-j-d-vance-gop-asks-court-to-overrule-limit-on-campaign-spending%2F&linkname=In%20lawsuit%20originally%20filed%20by%20J.D.%20Vance%2C%20GOP%20asks%20court%20to%20overrule%20limit%20on%20campaign%20spending" title="Email" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_button_printfriendly" href="https://www.addtoany.com/add_to/printfriendly?linkurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Fin-lawsuit-originally-filed-by-j-d-vance-gop-asks-court-to-overrule-limit-on-campaign-spending%2F&linkname=In%20lawsuit%20originally%20filed%20by%20J.D.%20Vance%2C%20GOP%20asks%20court%20to%20overrule%20limit%20on%20campaign%20spending" title="PrintFriendly" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank"></a><a class="a2a_dd addtoany_no_icon addtoany_share_save addtoany_share" href="https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2F2025%2F03%2Fin-lawsuit-originally-filed-by-j-d-vance-gop-asks-court-to-overrule-limit-on-campaign-spending%2F&title=In%20lawsuit%20originally%20filed%20by%20J.D.%20Vance%2C%20GOP%20asks%20court%20to%20overrule%20limit%20on%20campaign%20spending" data-a2a-url="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/in-lawsuit-originally-filed-by-j-d-vance-gop-asks-court-to-overrule-limit-on-campaign-spending/" data-a2a-title="In lawsuit originally filed by J.D. Vance, GOP asks court to overrule limit on campaign spending">Share</a></p><p style="font-weight: 400;"><em>The Petitions of the Week column highlights some of the </em><a href="about:blank#cert_petitions_explained"><em>cert petitions</em></a><em> recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available </em><a href="about:blank"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Nearly 25 years ago, the Supreme Court <a href="https://casetext.com/case/federal-election-commn-v-co-rep-fed-camp-comm#p465">upheld a federal restriction on the amount of money political parties can spend</a> at the direction of candidates for office. This week, we highlight petitions asking the court to consider, among other things, whether the justices should overrule that decision and hold that limits on these so-called “coordinated party expenditures” violate the First Amendment.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Limits on coordinated party expenditures first appeared in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. Congress passed the law to create a national framework for congressional and presidential elections. The law sets specific rules for campaign spending and gives the Federal Election Commission (FEC) broad power to regulate elections under those rules.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">The law also restricts the amounts of money both that individual donors can give to political parties or candidates, known as contributions, and that those parties or candidates can then spend on electoral races on their own, without cooperating, known as independent expenditures.<span id="more-319352"></span></p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">A series of Supreme Court decisions have weighed in on the 1971 law’s campaign-spending rules. In its landmark 1976 ruling in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/buckley-v-valeo?"><em>Buckley v. Valeo</em></a>, the court struck down the limits on independent expenditures but generally upheld the limits on contributions. The justices ruled that, unlike money donated to political parties or candidates — which may not be spent on electoral races — money spent by parties or candidates directly on elections is core political speech protected by the First Amendment.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">A quarter-century later, in 2001, the court in <a href="https://casetext.com/case/federal-election-commn-v-co-rep-fed-camp-comm#p465"><em>FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee</em></a> upheld the 1971 law’s limits on coordinated party expenditures. By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that Congress had a good reason to enact the restrictions: to prevent individual donors from using committees of the major political parties to circumvent the federal limits on contributions. This view rests on the theory that money donated to political parties and then spent at the direction of specific candidates is virtually the same as money donated to and then spent by those candidates themselves.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Fast-forward two decades to today, and the <em>Colorado</em> ruling is under siege. In 2022, then-Sen. J.D. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot — both Republicans from Ohio — and the Republican Party’s national committees that coordinate spending on behalf of senatorial and congressional races went to federal court, arguing that the federal limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Under a federal law governing these types of challenges, a federal district court in Ohio oversaw the long process of compiling evidence in the case — known as discovery — and then sent the First Amendment issue straight to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">The 6th Circuit rejected the Republicans’ challenge. In an opinion by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the court of appeals concluded it was bound by the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in the Colorado case. However, its members might have come to a different conclusion, Sutton wrote, if they were “faced with a clear playing field” unbridled by that 2001 decision.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">In <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission/"><em>National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC</em></a>, the Republican senatorial and congressional committees — with now-Vice President Vance and former Rep. Chabot out of the case — ask the justices to do what the 6th Circuit could not, and overrule their 2001 decision upholding the federal limits on coordinated party expenditures.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">The Republican Party makes two arguments in favor of overruling. First, the party contends that the court’s decisions since 2001 have narrowed the reasons Congress can restrict campaign spending to one: preventing “quid pro quo” corruption – the idea that individual donations will be made in return for specifc political favors. By contrast, the Republican Party suggests, Congress enacted the limits on coordinated party expenditures, and the justices’ 2001 decision upheld them, based on an entirely different justification: preventing the circumvention of contribution limits by individual donors with party connections.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Second, the Republican Party argues that campaign spending has changed drastically in the past 25 years. The limits on coordinated party expenditures, the party contends, led to the rise of Super PACs, which today allow donors and candidates to coordinate in spending money on elections. Under the Supreme Court’s landmark 2010 ruling in <em><a href="https://casetext.com/case/citizens-united-v-federal-election-comn">Citizens United v. FEC</a></em>, political spending by Super PACs is virtually unlimited.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">Even if the justices are unwilling to overrule the 2001 decision, however, the Republican Party insists this lawsuit is different because the federal law limiting coordinated party expenditures itself has changed. Congress amended the law in 2014, the party emphasizes, to allow parties and candidates to spend more money in coordination on several items, including presidential nominating conventions and legal fees.</p>
<p style="font-weight: 400;">In a routine move, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris has asked for more time to file the government’s brief in response to the Republican Party’s petition. Before the 6th Circuit, the Biden administration defended the federal limits on coordinated party expenditures. It remains to be seen whether Harris will do the same before the Supreme Court, or instead will join the Republican Party to defend the vice president’s former case by asking the justices to reevalute these restrictions under the First Amendment.</p>
<h3 style="font-weight: 400;"><strong>A list of this week’s featured petitions is below:</strong></h3>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/national-republican-senatorial-committee-v-federal-election-commission/"><em>National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission</em></a><br />
24-621<br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-52-voting-and-elections/subtitle-iii-federal-campaign-finance/chapter-301-federal-election-campaigns/subchapter-i-disclosure-of-federal-campaign-funds/section-30116-limitations-on-contributions-and-expenditures">52 U.S.C. § 30116</a> violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in <a href="https://casetext.com/regulation/code-of-federal-regulations/title-11-federal-elections/chapter-i-federal-election-commission/subchapter-a-general/part-109-coordinated-and-independent-expenditures-52-usc010117-30116a-and-d-and-pub-l07-1-sec14c/subpart-d-special-provisions-for-political-party-committees/section-10937-what-is-a-party-coordinated-communication">11 C.F.R. § 109.37</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/wheeler-v-united-states-2/"><em>Wheeler v. United States</em></a><br />
24-678<br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether Congress violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause when it deprived servicemembers facing criminal prosecutions of the right to be tried by a panel of fellow servicemembers.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/energetic-tank-inc-v-united-states/"><em>Energetic Tank, Inc. v. United States</em></a><br />
24-683<br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether <a href="https://casetext.com/case/feres-v-united-states-jefferson-v-united-states-united-states-v-griggs"><em>Feres v. United States</em></a> should be extended to bar claims under statutes other than the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/part-iv-jurisdiction-and-venue/chapter-85-district-courts-jurisdiction/section-1346-united-states-as-defendant">Federal Tort Claims Act</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/meadors-v-erie-county-board-of-elections/"><em>Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections</em></a><br />
24-684<br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine requires plaintiffs in election law cases to predict and articulate specific plans for their own future electoral participation, or instead it is sufficient to show that the challenged law will continue to affect voters and candidates in future elections.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/mcbrine-v-united-states/"><em>McBrine v. United States</em></a><br />
24-685<br />
<strong>Issues</strong>: (1) Whether plaintiffs who bring actions against the United States under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 have the right to trial by jury; and (2) whether parties who have been denied a statutory right to trial by jury may categorically obtain mandamus relief.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/young-v-swaney/"><em>Young v. Swaney</em></a><br />
24-686<br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether a certificate of appealability may be granted under <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-28-judiciary-and-judicial-procedure/part-vi-particular-proceedings/chapter-153-habeas-corpus/section-2253-appeal">28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)</a> when the issue that the petitioner wishes to present on appeal has been resolved against him by binding circuit precedent but in his favor by another federal court of appeals.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/exxon-mobil-corp-v-corporacion-cimex-s-a/"><em>Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A.</em></a><br />
24-699<br />
<strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-22-foreign-relations-and-intercourse/chapter-69a-cuban-liberty-and-democratic-solidarity-libertad/subchapter-iii-protection-of-property-rights-of-united-states-nationals/section-6082-liability-for-trafficking-in-confiscated-property-claimed-by-united-states-nationals">Helms-Burton Act</a> abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the <a href="https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-22-foreign-relations-and-intercourse/chapter-69a-cuban-liberty-and-democratic-solidarity-libertad/section-6023-definitions">Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/antonyuk-v-james-2/"><em>Antonyuk v. James</em></a><br />
24-795<br />
<strong>Issues</strong>: (1) Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning as applied to the states is 1791, rather than 1868; and (2) whether “the people” must convince government officials of their “good moral character” before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/03/in-lawsuit-originally-filed-by-j-d-vance-gop-asks-court-to-overrule-limit-on-campaign-spending/">In lawsuit originally filed by J.D. Vance, GOP asks court to overrule limit on campaign spending</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>
<img src="https://api.follow.it/track-rss-story-loaded/v1/chrTp5HLnuy3TNMTPQf8lXn9ye8UNv30" border=0 width="1" height="1" alt="Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases" title="Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases"> <p><em>The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available </em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/faqs-announcements-of-orders-and-opinions/#relists_explained"><em>here</em></a><em>.</em></p> <p>The Supreme Court is making good progress in sorting through the current relists. This week it disposed of four. It was good news for the petitioner in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/fernandez-v-united-states/"><em>Fernandez v. United States</em></a>, involving the scope of <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3582">a statute that gives judges discretion to reduce criminal sentences</a> for “extraordinary and compelling reasons.” The court will consider whether those “extraordinary and compelling reasons” include doubt about guilt that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The court is now holding a second relisted petition raising a similar issue, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/elliott-v-united-states/"><em>Elliott v. United States</em></a>, pending disposition in <em>Fernandez</em>.</p> <p>The Supreme Court declined review in 15-time relist <em>Apache Stronghold v. United States</em>, however, which challenged a federal land transfer that would facilitate copper mining at Oak Flat, a site sacred to the Western Apache. Justice Neil Gorsuch, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-291_5i26.pdf">dissented from the denial</a>, emphasizing that the planned mining operations would permanently destroy a central place of worship, preventing the Apaches from practicing essential religious ceremonies that cannot occur elsewhere. </p> <p>The court also denied review in 10-time relist <em>L.M. v. Middleborough</em>, involving a Massachusetts middle-school student who was barred from wearing to school a shirt stating “There Are Only Two Genders.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld the school’s decision, finding no First Amendment violation. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Thomas, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-410_o75p.pdf">dissented from the denial of cert</a>, arguing that the school engaged in viewpoint discrimination by promoting gender fluidity while silencing opposing views. Thomas, ever the originalist, also wrote a separate opinion that reiterated his skepticism of the seminal student-speech case <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/393/503/"><em>Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District</em></a>, yet emphasized that even under <em>Tinker</em>, the school’s actions were unjustified. </p> <p>That brings us to this week’s conference, in which there are 143 petitions and applications on the Supreme Court’s docket. Four of these are newly relisted cases. </p> <p><strong>Government contractors’ defenses to torts </strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/the-geo-group-inc-v-menocal/"><em>The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal</em></a> arises from a class action brought by former immigration detainees at a private detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, operated by The GEO Group, Inc. under contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The plaintiffs claim that GEO required detainees to clean common areas under threat of punishment – starting with the loss of TV and telephone privileges – potentially including solitary confinement. According to the plaintiffs, there was also a separate voluntary work program under which detainees could do various jobs, but for which they were paid just $1 per day. </p> <p>The class action alleged violations of the <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-2000-title18-section1589&num=0&edition=2000">Trafficking Victims Protection Act</a> and Colorado common law prohibitions against unjust enrichment. GEO asserted that it had derivative sovereign immunity under the 1940 Supreme Court case <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/309/18/"><em>Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co.</em></a>, arguing that it was merely executing government directives and was thus immune from suit. But the district court denied GEO at summary judgment, holding that the challenged policies were not required by the ICE contract. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit subsequently dismissed GEO’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, holding that denial of <em>Yearsley</em> immunity is not an immediately appealable collateral order.</p> <p>GEO now seeks Supreme Court review, arguing that the decision deepens a 5-3 circuit split on whether <em>Yearsley</em>-based claims of derivative sovereign immunity can be reviewed before final judgment. GEO’s cert petition insists that denying immediate review frustrates the very purpose of immunity: to avoid litigation burdens in the first place. Supporting briefs from groups including the Professional Services Council warn the lower court’s ruling may chill contractor participation in federal programs. But the former detainees counter that <em>Yearsley</em> is merely a merits defense – not an immunity from suit – and contend the issue is too fact-bound for interlocutory appeal. </p> <p>According to GEO, three new courts of appeals have weighed in since the Supreme Court last considered the issue in <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/caci-premier-technology-inc-v-al-shimari/"><em>CACI Premier Technology v. al Shimari</em></a>. Although the court denied review of <em>CACI </em>in 2021, in that case the government – in response to the court’s invitation – <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-648/151310/20200826130104385_CACI%20v%20Al-Shimari.pdf">argued that Supreme Court review is warranted</a>, even though it takes the view that <em>Yearsley</em> immunity is not immediately appealable. Perhaps the time for review has finally arrived. </p> <p><strong>Immunity of federal contractors </strong></p> <p>In 2016, an Afghan national working under Fluor Corporation at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, employed pursuant to a Pentagon program encouraging the employment of Afghan citizens, built an explosive vest while unsupervised. He then detonated it, grievously injuring U.S. Army Specialist Winston Hencely. Hencely sued Fluor in tort, alleging negligent hiring, supervision, and retention under South Carolina law, as well as third-party contract claims. </p> <p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/21-1994/21-1994-2024-10-30.pdf?ts=1730311221">affirmed</a> the district court’s dismissal of the case, holding that the tort claims were barred by a form of federal preemption based on the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680">“combatant activities” exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act</a>. Although the appeals court recognized this provision normally bars claims only against the federal government, it determined this applied to claims against Fluor as a contractor since Fluor was “integrated into” combat operations and was working under the command of the military.</p> <p>In <em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hencely-v-fluor-corporation/">Hencely v. Fluor Corporation</a></em>, Hencely seeks Supreme Court review to resolve whether federal contractors enjoy immunity from state-law tort suits because they are integrated into combat operations, even when, as alleged here, they violate military orders and contractual duties. Hencely contends the 4th Circuit applied a new preemption theory unmoored from the FTCA’s text or Supreme Court precedent, extending the 1988 Supreme Court decision <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/500/"><em>Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation</em></a>, which immunized government contractors from liability under certain circumstances, beyond recognition. A brief from <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-924/354334/20250328171117618_Hencely%20v.%20Fluor%20Brief%20States%20Amicus.pdf">West Virginia and eleven other states</a> supporting Hencely echoes that concern, contending the ruling “rewrote the statute” to provide sweeping immunity for private contractors. Fluor counters that the ruling <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-924/357547/20250428124625242_24-924%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf">merely applies settled <em>Boyle</em> principles</a> to war-zone logistics and implicates no true circuit split. If the court wants to revisit <em>Boyle</em> or cabin the FTCA’s combat-zone carve-out, this could be a case to watch.</p> <p><strong>Standing in election law cases</strong></p> <p><em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/bost-v-illinois-state-board-of-elections/">Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections</a> </em>features a constitutional challenge to an Illinois law requiring the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive up to two weeks after Election Day, so long as they are postmarked (or certified) by Election Day. Representative Michael Bost, R-Ill., and two former presidential electors sued under the Constitution’s elections and electors clauses, arguing that the extended ballot receipt deadline unlawfully extends federal election timing beyond what 2 U.S.C. § 7 and 3 U.S.C. § 1 allow. They also invoked candidate-specific injuries, including campaign resource burdens and the alleged dilution of the “accurate vote tally.” </p> <p>But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit didn’t buy it. In an <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/23-2644/23-2644-2024-08-21.pdf?ts=1724257821">opinion</a> by Judge John Lee, the court dismissed for lack of standing, stating the harm to the plaintiffs as voters claiming their votes were diluted by late-returned ballots were the sort of “generalized grievances” that failed to distinguish these plaintiffs from anyone else in Illinois. A majority of the 7th Circuit also rejected Bost’s claims as a candidate, declaring it speculative that late-received votes made any difference. Judge Michael Scudder dissented in part, saying that Bost was injured as a candidate because the law increased his campaign costs by requiring him to monitor late-arriving votes. </p> <p>Bost argues that the 7th Circuit’s decision created a circuit split. In support of this, he points to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit’s decision in <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca8/20-3139/20-3139-2020-10-29.pdf?ts=1604012417"><em>Carson v. Simon</em> </a>(recognizing candidates’ interest in accurate vote tallies) and precedents from the U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit like <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C06/06-50812-CV0.wpd.pdf"><em>Tex. Democratic Party v. Benkiser</em></a> and <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/24-60395/24-60395-2024-10-25.pdf?ts=1729899015"><em>Republican National Committee v. Wetzel</em></a><em> </em>(accepting campaign costs as a cognizable injury). </p> <p>Illinois contends that no such split exists, as those cases involved competitive injuries not alleged here. Supporting briefs, from groups including the Gun Owners of America, warn of a post-2020 trend tightening standing rules, risking unreviewable election law abuses. With around half the states adopting similar postmarked-by-Election-Day counting policies, this case may catch the court’s eye.</p> <p><strong>Intellectual disability in capital cases</strong></p> <p>Over two decades ago, the Supreme Court held in <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/"><em>Atkins </em>v. <em>Virginia</em></a> that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of individuals who are intellectually disabled. In <a href="https://casetext.com/case/hall-v-florida-7"><em>Hall v. Florida</em></a> and <a href="https://casetext.com/case/moore-v-texas-12"><em>Moore v. Texas</em></a>, the court then adopted a definition of intellectual disability that looked to (among other factors) “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning,” and in particular, whether “the lower end of [the offender’s] [IQ] score range falls at or below 70.”</p> <p>Joseph Clifton Smith was convicted and sentenced to death for murdering Durk Van Dam in order to steal his boots, tools, and $140. In repeated IQ tests, Smith scored 78, 75, 74, 74, and 72. On habeas review, the district court held that Smith was intellectually disabled, noting among other things that because his 72 score had a three-point margin of error, his IQ could be as low as 69. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit <a href="https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/202114519.pdf">affirmed</a>. </p> <p>In 2023, <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hamm-v-smith-3/">Alabama petitioned for review</a> and after a remarkable 21 relists, the Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-167_heim.pdf">summarily vacated the judgment</a> and remanded, perhaps simply kicking the can down the road. Specifically, the court said the 11th Circuit’s opinion could be read as granting review because a single one of Smith’s tests could have been as low as 69, and that interpretation “would suggest a <em>per se</em> rule that the lower end of the standard-error range for an offender’s lowest score is dispositive.” On the other hand, the court noted that the 11th Circuit also approvingly cited the district court’s determination that Smith’s lowest score was not an outlier when considered together with his higher scores. According to the court, “[t]hat analysis would suggest a more holistic approach to multiple IQ scores that considers the relevant evidence, including as appropriate any relevant expert testimony.” </p> <p>On remand, <a href="https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/14-10721/14-10721-2024-11-14.pdf?ts=1731630699">the 11th Circuit made clear</a> that the latter (“holistic”) reading was the correct one, and that it had not relied on a single IQ test. The appeals court wrote that “to be even more precise, based on the complete record, including any relevant expert testimony, we concluded that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings that Smith suffered from significantly subaverage intellectual function, that he had significant and substantial deficits in adaptive behavior, and that he manifested those qualities before he turned 18.”</p> <p>Alabama is now back at the Supreme Court. In <em>Hamm v. Smith</em>, Alabama <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-872/342591/20250212131357854_2025.02.12%20--%20Hamm%20v.%20Smith%20Cert%20Petition%20FINAL.pdf">contends</a> that the courts below misapplied <em>Hall </em>and <em>Moore </em>by proceeding to the adaptive-functioning prong of the intellectual-disability test despite no IQ score clearly at or below 70. That, Alabama says, guts the rule requiring defendants to prove each <em>Atkins</em> prong – including “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” – by a preponderance of the evidence. Instead, the 11th Circuit supposedly allowed Smith to proceed based on the possibility that his “true” IQ could fall within range, even if his scores (ranging from 72 to 78 post-age-18) never showed a 70. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-872/355817/20250416175916793_BIO%20II%20Final.pdf">Smith responds</a> that the petition is a factbound request to second-guess credibility determinations after a full evidentiary hearing, and no real circuit split exists. </p> <p>The United States filed a rare (or at least <a href="https://x.com/johnpelwood/status/1901824076366205426">previously rare</a>) unsolicited cert-stage amicus brief supporting Alabama, arguing the court should take the case to clarify that states may require a threshold IQ finding before turning to adaptive deficits. The government also asks the court to grant review to provide guidance on how multiple IQ scores should be evaluated in the aggregate – a surprisingly uncharted area two decades post-<em>Atkins</em>. <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-872/352275/20250319101820099_Amicus_Commissioner%20v%20Smith.pdf">Nineteen states have also filed an amicus brief</a> supporting Alabama. Expect a decision soon on whether this becomes <em>Atkins</em>’ next chapter – a grant seems reasonably likely.</p> <p>That’s all for this week. Tune in Monday to find out whether the court will be adding anything to the fall argument calendar. </p> <p><strong>New Relists</strong></p> <p><em><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/bost-v-illinois-state-board-of-elections/">Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections</a></em>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-568.html">24-568</a></p> <p><strong>Issue</strong>: Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded sufficient factual allegations to show Article III standing to challenge state time, place, and manner regulations concerning their federal elections.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 22 conference)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/the-geo-group-inc-v-menocal/"><em>The GEO Group, Inc. v. Menocal</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-758.html">24-758</a></p> <p><strong>Issue</strong>: Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 22 conference)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hamm-v-smith-4/"><em>Hamm v. Smith</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-872.html">24-872</a></p> <p><strong>Issues</strong>: (1) Whether, under a proper application of <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/536/304/"><em>Atkins v. Virginia</em></a>, a state can require a claimant to prove an IQ of 70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) whether courts evaluating multiple IQ scores must find that every valid score of “about” 75 or less supports an <em>Atkins</em> claim.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 22 conference)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/hencely-v-fluor-corporation/"><em>Hencely v. Fluor Corporation</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-924.html">24-924</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Whether <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/500/"><em>Boyle v. United Technologies Corp.</em></a> should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2680">Federal Tort Claims Act’s</a> combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 22 conference)</p> <p><strong>Returning Relists</strong></p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/ocean-state-tactical-llc-v-rhode-island/"><em>Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-131.html">24-131</a></p> <p><strong>Issues: </strong>(1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.</p> <p>(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/snope-v-brown/"><em>Snope v. Brown</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-203.html">24-203</a></p> <p><strong>Issue:</strong> Whether the Constitution permits Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.</p> <p>(Relisted after the Jan. 10, Jan. 17, Jan. 24, Feb. 21, Feb. 28, March 7, March 21, March 28, April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/first-choice-womens-resource-centers-inc-v-platkin/"><em>First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-781.html">24-781</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?</p> <p>(Relisted after the April 4, April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/ghp-management-corp-v-city-of-los-angeles-california/"><em>GHP Management Corp v. City of Los Angeles, California</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-435.html">24-435</a></p> <p><strong>Issue</strong>: Whether an eviction moratorium depriving property owners of the fundamental right to exclude nonpaying tenants effects a physical taking.</p> <p>(Relisted after the April 17, April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a></a><a></a><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/nicholson-v-w-l-york-inc-dba-cover-girls/"><em>Nicholson v. W.L. York, Inc. dba Cover Girls</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-7490.html">23-7490</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Whether the continuing violations doctrine applies to claims premised on a pattern or practice of discrimination, or instead applies only in the context of hostile work environment claims.</p> <p>(Relisted after the April 25, May 2, May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/chambers-smith-v-ayers/"><em>Chambers-Smith v. Ayers</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-584.html">24-584</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Whether, when a person in state custody obtains new support for a previously available claim, that means she has a new “factual predicate” that restarts her clock to file a habeas petition under <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/2244">28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(D)</a>.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/case-v-montana/"><em>Case v. Montana</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-624.html">24-624</a></p> <p><strong>Issue: </strong>Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/meadors-v-erie-county-board-of-elections/"><em>Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-684.html">24-684</a></p> <p><strong>Issue</strong>: Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine requires plaintiffs in election law cases to predict and articulate specific plans for their own future electoral participation, or instead it is sufficient to show that the challenged law will continue to affect voters and candidates in future elections. </p> <p>(relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p> <p><a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/iowa-pork-producers-association-v-bonta/"><em>Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta</em></a>, <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-728.html">24-728</a></p> <p><strong>Issues: </strong>(1) Whether a party alleging that California’s Proposition 12, “which enacts a pork sales ban to regulate the manner in which pigs are housed in states across the country,” discriminates against interstate commerce, both directly and under <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/397/137/"><em>Pike v. Bruce Church</em></a>, states a claim; and (2) whether lower federal courts evaluating fractured opinions from the court consider all justices’ opinions to determine the majority position on a legal issue, or instead are limited to consider only opinions concurring in the result.</p> <p>(relisted after the May 15 and May 22 conferences.)</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/05/government-contractors-defenses-election-challenges-and-intellectual-disability-in-capital-cases/">Government contractors’ defenses, election challenges, and intellectual disability in capital cases</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com">SCOTUSblog</a>.</p>