The U.S. Supreme Court will return to the bench this week to consider whether a federal law subjecting Palestinian government organizations to federal jurisdiction violates due process principles and if the Medicaid Act's provider choice provision allows individual benefit recipients to sue states over the disqualification of healthcare providers. 

The justices will also hear oral arguments over the constitutionality of Wisconsin's approach to deciding whether an organization is entitled to religious tax exemptions from its unemployment program and whether prisoners can amend their habeas corpus relief petitions after a final judgment is rendered. 

Additionally, the court will issue an orders list Monday and opinions Wednesday. 

Here, Law360 breaks down this week's oral arguments.

Tax Exemptions

On Monday, the Supreme Court will consider whether Wisconsin's focus on an organization's actual activities in determining its entitlement to religious tax exemptions violates the First Amendment.

Catholic Charities Bureau Inc., the charitable arm of Wisconsin's Diocese of Superior, has asked the justices to overturn a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision upholding the state Labor & Industry Review Commission's finding that the bureau doesn't qualify as a religious organization exempt from contributing to the state's unemployment fund. The ruling was based on a review of the bureau's charitable activities, which the state Supreme Court found were primarily secular.

The bureau oversees several local entities that provide services throughout the state to elderly individuals and people with disabilities, regardless of their faith. The bureau, which was established under Roman Catholic ideals, also employs individuals regardless of their faith. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that those actions, rather than the bureau's religious founding principles, determined its tax exemption status.

Catholic Charities argues Wisconsin's focus on its services violates the First Amendment's religion clause in multiple ways, including allowing the state government to decide what is a sufficiently religious activity. Under Wisconsin's test, only entities that proselytize, conduct baptismal or wedding services or otherwise administer sacraments would be entitled to tax exemptions, the bureau claims. It says the test also discriminates among religions by requiring that tax-exempt entities provide services to or employ only those of their own faith.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin defends its test by arguing that it properly tailored the exemption only to those employers that present entanglement issues. The state must weigh its interest in protecting workers' rights against an entity's religious rights, and so Wisconsin doesn't exempt groups where religion plays no role in employment decisions, the state says. Catholic Charities hasn't established a First Amendment claim because it can't assert a religious objection to contributing to the state's unemployment fund, and it hasn't suggested that it has been targeted because of its religious beliefs in any way, the state says.

The Trump administration, which will argue as amicus in favor of Catholic Charities, disagrees. Wisconsin's test should depend on whether an organization was founded to further serve religious beliefs, not on the nature of the specific activities it participates in, the administration says. Otherwise, the state would be inviting government officials to second-guess the sufficiency of religious values, which violates the First Amendment, it says.

Eric C. Rassbach, vice president and senior counsel at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, will argue for Catholic Charities, and Colin T. Roth of the Wisconsin Department of Justice will argue for the state. Curtis E. Gannon of the U.S. Solicitor General's Office will argue for the federal government.

The case is Catholic Charities Bureau Inc. et al. v. Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission et al., case number 24-154.

Habeas Amendments

Also on Monday, the justices will hear arguments over prisoners' ability to amend pending habeas corpus petitions.

Texas man Danny Richard Rivers, who was convicted in 2012 for charges of child sex abuse and possessing child pornography, has urged the high court to reverse a Fifth Circuit panel's dismissal of a filing that he describes as an amendment to a pending habeas corpus petition. The appellate panel deemed it a second or successive petition and found Rivers was barred from filing it under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

Rivers has been challenging his convictions in federal court since 2017, claiming his trial lawyer repeatedly showed up to court drunk and failed to properly investigate his defense. While the Fifth Circuit was reviewing a district court's denial of his request for habeas relief, Rivers received new evidence to support his claims and sought to amend his petition at the district court level. But the district court found it lacked jurisdiction over Rivers' new filing, which it characterized as a barred second petition, and the Fifth Circuit panel agreed.

Rivers argues the appellate court's ruling contradicts a pattern of courts historically allowing midappeal amendments to habeas petitions. The AEDPA specifically allows amendments to promote judicial efficiency and prevent parallel litigation over similar topics. The Fifth Circuit's approach would not only harm the principle of judicial economy, but it would also prohibit the introduction of newly discovered evidence, Rivers claims. It also contradicts the Second Circuit, which has allowed amendments to pending petitions for decades, he says.

But Eric Guerrero, director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's correctional institutions division, argues the Supreme Court doesn't even need to consider Rivers' argument. He has asked the justices to dismiss Rivers' petition as improvidently granted due to its alleged failure to address the questions presented and the fact that the new evidence Rivers seeks to admit relates only to his child pornography conviction, for which he has already completed his prison sentence.

If the justices want to reach the merits, Guerrero contends Rivers' alleged amendment bears all the hallmarks of a second habeas application, which Rivers would have been required to file first with the Fifth Circuit to receive permission to pursue his amended claims. Additionally, courts would've historically treated Rivers' request as a motion to vacate judgment, which judges routinely dismiss, he said.

The Trump administration, which will argue as amicus in favor of Guerrero, has urged the high court to affirm the Fifth Circuit's ruling, arguing that a prisoner can't file an amendment without first obtaining an order vacating the district court's final judgment. And relief from a final judgment is subject to strict requirements that Rivers likely doesn't meet, it said.

Peter A. Burland, a senior managing associate at Sidley Austin LLP, will argue for Rivers, and Texas Solicitor General Aaron L. Nielsen will argue for Guerrero. Matthew Guarnieri of the U.S. Solicitor General's Office will argue for the federal government.

The case is Rivers v. Guerrero, case number 23-1345.

Terrorism Liability

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether a law subjecting Palestinian government organizations to federal court jurisdiction if they contribute to terror attacks against Americans violates the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.

The United States and families of terrorist attack victims, led by Miriam Fuld, have asked the justices to overturn a Second Circuit panel's finding that the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act is unconstitutional. The act gives federal courts automatic jurisdiction over lawsuits seeking to hold the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian Authority liable for funding terror attacks that injure or kill Americans.

An appellate panel ruled the act violates due process by subjecting the groups to federal jurisdiction without their consent. The act, which conditions jurisdiction on the PLO's and the Palestinian Authority's continued practice of funding terrorists while conducting business in the U.S., isn't a reciprocal bargain that provides the groups with some form of benefit, the panel held.

Fuld, the families and the federal government argue the Fifth Amendment doesn't bar such provisions and doesn't empower the judiciary to invalidate the act and usurp the political branches' ability to pursue foreign policy and national security goals. The act, referred to as PSJVTA, satisfies the basic due process principles of fair warning and nonabritrariness, Fuld and the families claim. The government adds that the PLO and the Palestinian Authority were made aware of the PSJVTA's terms and gave constructive consent to federal jurisdiction by deciding against changing their actions.

However, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority, which claim they are no longer financially supporting terrorists or conducting business in the U.S. outside of exempt United Nations-related actions, argue Congress cannot impose federal jurisdiction on a foreign entity as a punishment or sanction for disfavored activity. Despite the PSJVTA, the government and families of terrorist attack victims would still need to prove the groups had minimum contact with whatever forum they sue in because both the payments and attacks alleged happened overseas.

Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP partner Kent A. Yalowitz will argue for Fuld, Edwin S. Kneedler of the U.S. Solicitor General's Office will argue for the federal government, and Squire Patton Boggs senior partner Mitchell R. Berger will argue for Palestine.

The consolidated cases are Fuld et al. v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al., case number 24-20, and United States v. Palestine Liberation Organization et al., case number 24-151.

Provider Choice

On Wednesday, the justices will hear arguments over whether the Medicaid Act's provider choice provision creates a private right for beneficiaries to choose their specific providers.

Eunice Medina, director of South Carolina's Department of Health and Human Services, has urged the Supreme Court to reverse a Fourth Circuit panel decision finding that Section 1396a(a)(23)(A) of the Medicaid Act establishes a private right that allows Medicaid recipients to claim that a state's disqualification of a healthcare provider violates their civil rights.

The provision, which requires state Medicaid plans to allow beneficiaries to obtain medical care from qualified providers of their choice, was the basis for a lawsuit filed by Medicaid recipient Julie Edwards and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic after South Carolina decided in 2018 to deem all abortion providers unqualified to provide family planning services. Gov. Henry McMaster announced the policy change in light of a state law that prohibits using public funds to pay for abortions.

Medina argues the Fourth Circuit erred in finding the provision establishes a private right because it doesn't use the word or explicitly refer to individuals in a way that would confer a private right of action. Instead, the provision is just one of more than 80 requirements for state Medicaid plans, and the sole punishment for violating it is rescission of federal funding, she says. Recipients and providers have access to an administrative appeals process to challenge any adverse rulings, she says, but Edwards and Planned Parenthood didn't exhaust that process before filing suit.

However, Planned Parenthood and Edwards argue there are no "magic words" that Congress must use to establish a private right of action. The history and the context of the provision are enough to prove that federal lawmakers meant to make violations actionable under federal civil rights claims, they say. The choice of a medical provider is a personal one that has long been protected by Congress, they say, especially in the family planning context.

The Trump administration, which will argue as amicus in favor of Medina, counters that the provision is part of legislation issued under the Constitution's spending clause, which means the expected remedy for noncompliance is a financial one. Additionally, Congress never put states on notice that the section would expose them to liability, the government says. Without "unmistakable evidence" that federal lawmakers intended to establish an individual right, the judiciary cannot create one, the government says.

John J. Bursch, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, will argue for Medina, and Mayer Brown LLP partner Nicole A. Saharsky will argue for Planned Parenthood. Kyle D. Hawkins of the U.S. Solicitor General's Office will argue for the federal government.

The case is Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic et al., case number 23-1275.

--Editing by Kat Weaver.