The Supreme Court has declined to take up several high-profile cases, including a challenge to the city of Chicago’s policy of seizing and selling cars owned by drivers with unpaid parking tickets. Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a statement regarding the denial of review that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
Sotomayor expressed “serious concerns” about the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, but emphasized that the court should not take up the question until more courts of appeals have had a chance to consider it. The case, O’Donnell v. City of Chicago, was brought by two motorists whose cars were sold by the city.
Vehicle Seizures in Chicago
The city’s policy provides for the seizure and sale of cars owned by drivers with as few as two unpaid parking tickets, without any compensation to the owners. The 7th Circuit rejected the challenge to the policy, calling it “an exercise of the City’s police power to enforce its traffic code.”
Ryan O’Donnell and Michael Goree, the two motorists who brought the case, asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on the constitutionality of the policy. However, the court denied review, with Sotomayor suggesting that the case was not necessarily an appropriate one in which to consider the issue.
9/11 Plea Disputes
The justices also turned down petitions for review in two cases related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The cases, Mohammad v. United States and bin ‘Atash v. United States, were brought by Khalid Sheikh Mohammad and others involved in the planning of the attacks.
Related Post: Supreme Court pauses ruling on political ad rates dispute
The men had sought to reinstate plea agreements that they entered into more than two years ago, after spending nearly two decades in Guantanamo Bay, that would allow them to plead guilty but avoid the death penalty in exchange for life sentences. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the government that the agreements were not binding, and the Supreme Court denied their requests to weigh in.
Defense Secretary’s Authority and NLRB Removal Dispute
Lloyd Austin, then the Secretary of Defense, announced that he had the ultimate power to decide whether such agreements were appropriate, and sought to withdraw the government’s consent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in Mohammad’s case.
Gwynne Wilcox, a former NLRB member, filed a petition for review after President Trump attempted to fire her shortly after his second inauguration. The court declined a petition for review filed by Gwynne Wilcox, and citing the lack of a quorum, left in place a ruling in a copyright dispute between several major music companies and a songwriter.
Four justices—Sotomayor, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson—recused themselves from that dispute, reportedly because one of the companies is owned by the parent of Penguin Random House, which has published books by each justice. There is no deadline for the solicitor general to file a brief in the related case.
In other actions, the court sought the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, and did not act on a group of redistricting cases out of Alabama. The justices also did not rule on a petition for review asking them to decide whether a car is always a tool of interstate commerce.
