The justices will also hear arguments in a dispute over what factors multi-employer retirement benefits plan actuaries can consider when calculating the amount a company must pay when withdrawing from a plan.
Additionally, the court will release orders and at least one opinion on Tuesday.
Here, Law360 breaks down the week's oral arguments.
Vampire Gun Rules
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will debate the constitutionality of a Hawaii law that prohibits concealed carry permit holders from bringing guns onto private property open to the public without the property owner's explicit permission.
Three Maui County residents, led by Jason Wolford, and gun rights group Hawaii Firearms Coalition have asked the justices to reverse a Ninth Circuit decision upholding the state's so-called "vampire rule" for guns. Hawaii is one of five states – along with California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey – with laws that presumptively ban the carrying of firearms in places like grocery stores, gas stations and other retail establishments without the property owner or lessee's consent.
A three-judge appellate panel unanimously ruled in September 2024 that Hawaii's law comports with the Second Amendment right to bear arms because it follows a national tradition of barring individuals from carrying guns on private property open to the public without consent. To support its conclusion, the panel pointed to six historical laws, including two "dead ringers" from New Jersey in 1771 and Louisiana in 1865.
Wolford and the other challengers argue the Ninth Circuit failed to apply the appropriate analysis in this case. Under the Supreme Court's revamped Second Amendment case law, Hawaii was required to prove its law had historical analogues, but the New Jersey and Louisiana laws cited by the appellate court come nowhere close to meeting that standard, the challengers claim. The 1771 New Jersey rule forbade carrying guns on another's land "for which the owner pays taxes" without written permission, but didn't explicitly address private property open to the public, they said. And the 1865 Louisiana law is not only outside the Founding-era time period that the high court has said is key to analyzing the scope of the Second Amendment, Wolford and the others contend, it was also limited to plantations.
The federal government, which will argue in favor of Wolford and the challengers, adds that Hawaii cannot identify a permissible reason for its law. It was clearly enacted in an effort to skirt the Supreme Court's 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, which extended the Second Amendment right to carry guns in self-defense to outside the home, the government said. Additionally, both common law and property law weigh in favor of Wolford and the challengers because there is a long tradition in the United States of allowing individuals to carry guns onto private property open to the public unless the owner says otherwise, the government claimed.
Hawaii, through its state attorney general Anne E. Lopez, counters that the state's law was designed to balance gun owners' rights with property owners' rights, and to establish that the Second Amendment doesn't override a property owners' right to prohibit armed entry. Along with resembling national historical analogue laws, Lopez claims Hawaii's law reflects its unique pre-statehood history as a kingdom that barred residents from carrying any type of weapon in public. While parts of the continental United States may have a long history of allowing individuals to carry guns onto private property open to the public unless explicitly prohibited, Hawaii has an opposite history, she said.
Alan A. Beck will argue for Wolford and his fellow challengers of the law, Sarah M. Harris, of the U.S. Solicitor General's Office, will argue for the federal government in favor of Wolford, and Milbank LLP partner Neal K. Katyal will argue for Lopez.
The case is Wolford et al. v. Lopez, case number 24-1046.
Withdrawal Liability Calculations
Also on Tuesday, the justices will consider how actuaries for employee retirement benefits plans should calculate the amount employers must pay when withdrawing from a plan.
Illinois-based M&K Employee Solutions LLC and three other companies who withdrew from an International Association of Machinists pension fund in 2018 have petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a D.C. Circuit decision allowing the fund's actuary to use retroactive assumptions when calculating their withdrawal liabilities. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, requires an employer's withdrawal liabilities, the amount of money a company leaving a multi-employer plan must pay to offset any funding deficits, to be calculated "as of" the end of the previous plan year, which in this case means as of Dec. 31, 2017.
A three-judge appellate panel unanimously held in February 2024 that the pension fund's actuary could use assumptions about the plan's future adopted after Dec. 31, 2017, to calculate the leaving companies' withdrawal liabilities, as long as the calculations were based on information available by that date.
But M&K Employee Solutions and the other companies claim the D.C. Circuit misinterpreted the statutory language in 29 U.S.C. Section 1391. By using "as of," Congress clearly meant to limit the factors actuaries could use in their calculations to those available on the last day of the prior plan year, they argue. Otherwise, withdrawal liabilities could be artificially inflated by adopting retroactive assumptions, like they were in this case by allegedly tripling the amount owed by M&K Employee Solutions and the other companies who left the pension plan. ERISA additionally limits retroactive changes to plan rules in other sections of the statute, which the companies argue reinforces their claim that Congress made a policy decision to limit when actuarial assumptions could be adopted.
Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund counter that ERISA doesn't set a hard deadline for deciding what actuarial assumptions to use in calculating employer withdrawal liability amounts. The only limits the statute imposes are requirements that the assumptions must be reasonable and represent the actuary's best estimate of the plan's future. Congress therefore delegated to actuaries the task of deciding what assumptions should be used in calculating withdrawal liabilities, the trustees claim. ERISA also provides withdrawing employers with a remedy to address alleged manipulations of those calculations, which the trustees argue undercuts the need for a hard deadline for adopting assumptions.
The federal government, which will argue in favor of the pension plan's trustees, adds that reading a hard deadline for adopting actuarial assumptions into ERISA would contradict Congress' decision to use retrospective phrasing in the statute. Lawmakers were also aware of well-settled actuarial practices of applying retroactive assumptions to these types of calculations when they enacted the statute, so if they wanted to override those normal practices, they would have explicitly said so, the government said.
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP partner Michael E. Kenneally will argue for M&K Employee Solutions and the other companies, Proskauer Rose LLP partner John E. Roberts will argue for the pension fund, and Kevin J. Barber, of the U.S. Solicitor General's Office, will argue for the federal government in favor of the pension fund.
The case is M&K Employee Solutions LLC et al. v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund, case number 23-1209.
Federal Reserve Firing
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will debate whether Trump can remove a Federal Reserve governor for alleged mortgage fraud while she challenges the president's bid to fire her in court.
Trump has asked the justices in an emergency application to stay a Washington, D.C., federal judge's preliminary injunction reinstating Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook amid a legal fight over the president's authority to fire her. Trump announced Cook's removal in August, claiming the Biden appointee allegedly made contradictory representations in mortgage paperwork she submitted in 2021. Cook denies the allegations and hasn't been charged with any crime.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb blocked Trump's removal of Cook in September, finding the removal likely violated the Federal Reserve Act's for cause removal provision, which allows governors to be removed only for their behavior in office and if they haven't "faithfully and effectively" executed their duties. The alleged mortgage fraud took place before Cook was appointed to the Fed board in 2022.
Trump, however, argues the allegations that Cook took out mortgages on two different homes while falsely declaring both as her primary residence in order to secure more favorable loan terms are a sufficient basis for her removal. The misstatements show "gross negligence" at best and could amount to "felonies" at worse, the administration claims. Federal courts have no authority to question whether the grounds for a president's for-cause removal of a governor are sufficient, it added, so the president's explanation for Cook's firing must receive significant deference.
Meanwhile, Cook argues the president lacks the power to summarily remove a sitting governor based on unproven allegations. Otherwise, she said, the president could "eviscerate" the Fed's independence, "upend financial markets, and create a blueprint for future presidents to direct monetary policy based on their political agencies and election calendar." Trump's interpretation of the FRA's for-cause removal protection, and the level of deference courts must show any decision, is so broad that it would give presidents unlimited authority to remove governors from their jobs for any reason, Cook added.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer will argue for Trump, and Clement & Murphy PLLC partner Paul D. Clement will argue for Cook.
The case is Trump et al. v. Cook, case number 25A312.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
