Join us for an exclusive opportunity to observe the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in action. This event offers a unique chance for students to witness oral arguments before the esteemed judges of the 10th Circuit. Attendees will gain invaluable insights into the judicial process as they observe real-time interactions between judges and attorneys. Don’t miss this rare glimpse into the workings of one of the nation's most important appellate courts. Learn more about the cases below. 

23-4106 Garfield County, Utah et al., Appellants v. Biden, et al.; Albert Lin, et al., Amici Curiae

(consol.)

23-4107 Dalton, et al., Appellants v. Biden, et al.; Albert Lin, et al., Amici Curiae

In these two consolidated cases, several individuals, a non-profit organization, two Utah counties and the State of Utah filed suit against the President and several federal agencies and cabinet members. Plaintiff-appellants alleged that President Biden violated the Antiquities Act when he enlarged the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument and the Bears Ears National Monument, and sought declaratory and injunctive relief barring federal defendants from implementing the challenged presidential proclamations. The district court dismissed the complaints and held that sovereign immunity barred judicial review of presidential proclamations issued pursuant to the Antiquities Act.

23-9605 Pinto, et al., Petitioners v. Garland

This case is an appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals, or BIA. The BIA is the highest administrative body with authority to interpret and apply immigration laws in the United States. Decisions by the BIA are reviewable in federal court, depending on the nature of the appeal. The briefs in this case are currently not publicly available.

23-3168 HomeRoom, Inc., et al., Appellants v. City of Shawnee, Kansas, et al.

The City of Shawnee, Kansas adopted an ordinance that prohibits more than three unrelated adults from residing together in the same residence throughout most of the city. Plaintiff-appellant HomeRoom, Inc., a property management company, and Plaintiff-appellant Val French, a private citizen, challenged the ordinance, alleging violations of the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and violation of state law. The district court dismissed the claims, concluding that plaintiff HomeRoom, Inc. lacked standing and that, with respect to plaintiff French’s federal claims, the ordinance did not violate substantive due process or the equal protection clause. The district court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim.

23-5133 Brown, Appellant v. City of Tulsa, et al.

Plaintiff-appellant Wayne Brown sued the City of Tulsa and the Tulsa police chief after the Tulsa Police Department terminated his employment. Brown was a recent graduate of the Tulsa Police Academy, and his termination followed a series of posts he made on his publicly-accessible social media page. Brown alleged that the termination of his employment violated his protected speech rights under the First Amendment, his rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was a wrongful discharge in violation of state law. The district court dismissed the federal claims and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, finding that the City’s interests in its police force outweighed Brown’s speech interests, and that Brown failed to establish a Fourteenth Amendment violation.

23-6169 Estate of Laura Ratley, et al., Appellants v. Awad, et al.

An employee of a food service distribution company parked his employer’s semi-truck on the shoulder of a turnpike. A minivan later struck the back of the semi-truck, resulting in two passengers’ deaths and injuries to the two other occupants of the minivan. Plaintiffs-appellants sued the truck driver and his employer for negligence, and also asserted negligent hiring and negligent entrustment against the food service company. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, concluding that the driver of the minivan was the proximate cause of the collision.