The Supreme Court denied review on June 22 in several cases, including matters involving voting rights and the environment, and it also asked for the federal government's views in two other challenges. For Saadeh, the move keeps his Voters Rights Act challenge alive for now while the justices wait for more briefing before deciding whether to take the case.
Saadeh v. New Jersey State Bar Association
Saadeh asked the justices in February to weigh in on a practice that he says excludes him from certain leadership positions. He described himself as "a Palestinian and Muslim leader in the state bar" and called the practice "Illegal discrimination," adding that it "does not become a constitutional right when the discriminator discriminates in the name of ‘diversity.’"
The New Jersey State Bar Association opposed review and said Saadeh does not have standing. It also said its "leadership-selection process has changed. Now, every at-large seat is open through multiple paths." A state appeals court upheld the practice under the First Amendment and wrote that forcing the association to alter or eliminate its diversity program would significantly burden the expression of its views.
Oregon price-disclosure case
The justices took a different step in Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America v. O'Day, asking for the federal government's views instead of ruling immediately. That case challenges an Oregon law requiring prescription drug makers to report information about some prescription drug prices to the state, and Oregon generally posts the reported information on a website.
Amy Howe reported that the court also declined review in a trademark dispute involving a company founded by LeBron James. The same order list came after the June 18 conference, the next conference is set for Thursday, June 25, and the court is likely to release the following order list on Monday, June 29, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.
June 29 order list
The practical effect of the June 22 orders is immediate for the cases the court left untouched: the lower-court outcomes stay in place. For the cases the justices set aside for the solicitor general and the U.S. solicitor general, the court has moved them one step further down the path without deciding the legal questions yet.
