A blockbuster finale looms Global News HQ

The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. A short explanation of relists is available here.

The Supreme Court continues to make way for the end of the term. On Monday, the court agreed to decide the relisted RLUIPA issue we have twice previewed. Now, as we head into the last regularly scheduled conference of the term, with 158 petitions and applications on the docket, the court has five newly relisted cases before it. These are the cases before the court that are most likely to be added to the fall argument calendar. The relists this week look especially likely to yield grants, with the government or respected “friends of the court” urging review.

A potential campaign-finance blockbuster

The Supreme Court seems poised to revisit its campaign-finance precedent in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, a case challenging the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates. The challengers, which include the NRSC, National Republican Congressional Commitee, and former candidates J.D. Vance and Steve Chabot, argue that these caps violate the First Amendment by restricting political parties’ ability to coordinate with their candidates on campaign advertising – a core function of political speech.

The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in a 10-judge majority opinion written by Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton, upheld the limits reluctantly, tethered to the Supreme Court’s 2001 five-to-four decision in FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. But Sutton acknowledged “tension” between that precedent and more recent First Amendment decisions like McCutcheon v. FEC and FEC v. Cruz, which have held that the only permissible ground for restricting political speech (and spending money is “speech” here) is to prevent “‘quid pro quo’ corruption or its appearance.” In separate opinions, several judges urged the Supreme Court to weigh in.

Cue the NRSC’s cert petition. The challengers argue that the law chills core political speech by making it harder for parties and candidates to collaborate on messaging, especially in an era dominated by Super PACs and independent expenditures. The real eyebrow-raiser? The federal government – normally in the business of defending federal statutes – filed a brief agreeing with the challengers and urging the justices to take up the case. The government argued that the coordinated expenditure limits “violate[] core First Amendment rights” and that the Supreme Court’s Colorado decision has been so undermined by doctrinal, statutory, and factual changes that it’s ripe for overruling. With the two parties in alignment, the Democratic National Committee and that party’s two congressional campaign committees have sought to intervene; neither the NRSC nor the government oppose.

With both parties in the case aligned against the statute and multiple 6th Circuit judges on an en banc court noting the deep fault lines in precedent, this may be the first potential blockbuster of October Term 2025. If the court grants the case, it will likely allow the DNC to intervene to defend the law.

A First Amendment challenge to ballot access laws

Continuing with the theme of First Amendment limitations on election law, Oregon v. Committee to Recall Dan Holladaytees up a challenge to the so-called “Angle doctrine” of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. That doctrine, birthed in the 2012 case of Angle v. Miller, holds that even neutral, procedural rules for ballot access – like signature thresholds and filing deadlines – may trigger strict scrutiny, the most stringent form of review, under the First Amendment if they “significantly inhibit” a voter’s ability to get initiatives or recalls on the ballot.

Oregon applied its standard 90-day signature window to a local effort to recall the mayor of an Oregon city aptly named “Oregon City.” The campaign succeeded, but the recall proponents sued anyway, claiming that the time constraint chilled their speech rights. The district court dismissed the suit. While the 9th Circuit agreed that the current complaint was insufficient, it allowed the recall proponents an opportunity to amend their complaint.

Oregon – joined by the Public Interest Legal Foundation as a “friend of the court” — argues that the Supreme Court should take up the case and overrule Angle, warning that this line of cases invites federal courts to supervise state election codes. Rather, the state says, neutral ballot rules do not implicate the First Amendment at all. Oregon invokes a separate opinion joined by four justices who previously flagged the circuit split in Little v. Reclaim Idaho and called it “an important issue of election administration.” Oregon also cites a thumping dissent from the 9th Circuit’s decision to deny rehearing by the full court, in which Judge Patrick Bumatay (joined by three colleagues) accused the 9th Circuit of entrenching a “standardless” test that effectively lets federal courts rewrite state election laws.

Oregon argues that decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th 10th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits go the other way, treating neutral procedural rules as outside the scope of First Amendment review. With Oregon arguing that the U.S Courts of Appeals for the 6th and 8th Circuits have now joined the 9th Circuit in applying strict scrutiny, it contends that the split is entrenched – and likely to go unresolved until the Supreme Court steps in. This case is getting a close look, probably to see if it is a suitable vehicle for resolving the issue.

Time limits on removing a case to federal court

Our next relist concerns a fairly narrow issue of civil procedure. Section 1446(b)(1) of title 28 provides that when there is a basis for a defendant to move a state-court case to federal court, the defendant has 30 days to file a notice of removal. Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel asks whether courts can make equitable exceptions to that limitations period.

At the center of the dispute is Ensign’s Line 5 pipeline, a cross-border energy pipeline that has transported oil and gas between the U.S. and Canada for decades. Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel wants it shut down, citing environmental risks. Enbridge tried to remove Nessel’s state lawsuit against it to federal court, arguing that international treaty obligations and foreign-affairs implications demanded a federal forum.

But there was a procedural hiccup: Enbridge sought to remove the case over two years after being sued. The district court excused the delay, citing “exceptional circumstances” like parallel federal litigation and the case’s federal stakes. But the 6th Circuit reversed, holding that Section 1446(b)’s deadline is a mandatory claims-processing rule with “no room for equitable exceptions.”

Enbridge now requests Supreme Court review, arguing that the circuits are divided about whether courts can make equitable exceptions. They are supported by two “friend of the court” briefs, one of them filed by legendary civil procedure professor Arthur Miller (of “Wright and” fame), who says that there are good arguments on both sides but national uniformity is important. Michigan counters that any split is overblown and that it’s a job for Congress, not the courts, if the statute needs to be fixed. This may not be as sexy as the First Amendment relists, but it’s a serious contender.

Standard for reviewing findings in immigration cases

Last up we have a pair of immigration cases raising related issues.

In Maldonado-Magno v. Bondi, a Peruvian couple and their minor son fled Lima after criminals targeted their restaurant for extortion. They sought asylum, claiming persecution tied to political opinion.

The Board of Immigration Appeals denied their claim, finding no nexus between the harm they suffered and a protected characteristic (such as persecution “on account of” political opinion). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit affirmed under a deferential substantial-evidence standard.

The family now seeks Supreme Court review, arguing that the BIA’s determination – whether undisputed facts meet the INA’s “persecution on account of” standard under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) – is a legal question that courts should review de novo – that is, as if the case were being considered for the first time, without any deference to earlier conclusions. It contends that there is a circuit split, with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 5th, 7th, and 10th Circuits applying deferential substantial-evidence review, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 9th, and 11th Circuits employ more exacting de novo review for legal applications to undisputed facts.

Then there’s Urias-Orellana v. Bondi. Douglas Humberto Urias-Orellana fled El Salvador after a series of brutal attacks and death threats, allegedly by a local hitman linked to a drug gang. The BIA concluded that while his story was credible, the harm didn’t constitute “persecution,” and that Urias-Orellana could reasonably relocate within El Salvador. The 1st Circuit applied the deferential substantial-evidence standard. Urias-Orellana likewise argues there is a circuit split.

Both petitions are supported by amicus briefs filed by American Gateways that argue there is widespread confusion over the proper standard of review for such determinations. But that is where the similarities end. The government agrees that Supreme Court review is warranted for Urias-Orellana, stating that “the circuits are inconsistent in their approaches” to the standard of review question, “which is important and frequently recurring,” and the case is “a suitable vehicle to resolve that question.”

But no such luck for the Maldonado-Magno family. The government says their case “is not a suitable vehicle for addressing confusion” regarding the standard of review “because the decision below resolved [their] asylum claims on the distinct ground that they had not established the required nexus between any persecution and a protected characteristic.” Moreover, the government added, the family had not identified any “court of appeals that would review a nexus finding de novo.”

The family responds by arguing that the issue involves a classic circuit split: The 4th and 9th Circuits review nexus determinations de novo when the facts are settled, while the 10th and others defer unless no reasonable adjudicator could disagree. I could see the court granting one or both of these petitions.

That’s all for this week. The court will likely have an impromptu mop-up conference sometime next week. Stay tuned.

New Relists

National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 24-621

Issue: Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37. [Note acquiescence and democrats’ effort to intervene.]