Department of Commerce v. New York
(1) The potential loss of federal funds from a citizenship question on the 2020 census impacting state population counts establishes Article III standing to sue. (2) The extensive authority granted to Congress and delegated to the Secretary of Commerce under the Enumeration Clause provides no basis to enjoin the Secretary from reinstating a citizenship question. (3) The Administrative Procedure Act reflects a presumption of judicial review that makes the Secretary’s decision amenable to judicial review. (4) Evidence of the Secretary’s intent to reinstate the citizenship question from the time he entered office conflicts with the given rationale for reinstating a citizenship question and warrants further explanation by the Department of Commerce for the basis of the Secretary’s decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Mitchell v. Wisconsin
When a driver is unconscious and therefore cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment generally permits a blood test without a warrant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rucho v. Common Cause
Partisan gerrymandering claims remain political questions for Congress, not the judiciary, to resolve.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers v. Thomas, Exec. Dir. of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission
State-mandated durational residence requirements for business owners applying for retail liquor store licensing is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause and is not protected by the Twenty-First Amendment § 2.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Haymond
The mandatory minimum sentence imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 3853(k) violates the right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dutra Group v. Batterton
Punitive damages are unavailable for mariner plaintiffs in claims of unseaworthiness.
Area(s) of Law:- Admiralty
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media
Under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, commercial and financial information that is “customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of [express or implied] privacy” is deemed confidential.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Iancu v. Brunetti
The prohibition against immoral or scandalous trademarks in 15 U.S.C. §1052(a) is viewpoint based discrimination and violates the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
United States v. Davis
18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B)’s definition of a crime of violence as an "offense that by its nature involves a risk of force" mandates the use of a categorical approach, making the clause unconstitutionally vague.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Flowers v. Mississippi
A state may not use preemptory challenges that are substantially motivated by discriminatory intent to strike prospective jurors in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and United States Supreme Court precedent.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania
Property owners with an actionable takings claim are no longer required to litigate state action for just compensation before pursuing a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, overruling Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172 (1985).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Rehaif v. United States
In a prosecution under §922(g) and §924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
American Legion v. American Humanist Assn.
Under the Establishment Clause, the passage of time gives rise to a presumption of constitutionality for monuments, symbols, and practices, even where such monuments, symbols, or practices include symbolic references to faith.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Gundy v. United States
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) provision 34 U. S. C. §§20913(d), does not violate the nondelegation doctrine by allowing the Attorney General to enforce and apply the Act registration requirements to pre-Act offenders.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
McDonough v. Smith
The statute of limitations for a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging the use of fabricated evidence, begins to run when criminal proceedings against a defendant are terminated in his or her favor.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust
States may not tax trusts based solely on the in-state residency of a beneficiary.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc.
When determining whether a court must follow an order issued by an administrative agency, a court must first determine whether the order is legislative or interpretive and whether the petitioner had a prior and adequate opportunity to seek judicial review of the order.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Gamble v. United States
The Dual-Sovereignty Doctrine is neither contrary nor an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck
Operation of public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function; private entities that operate public access channels are not state actors and are not restricted by the First Amendment in their editorial discretion.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill
An intervening party to a litigation must, in its own right, meet all the elements of standing to appeal a decision which the primary party does not wish to challenge.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren
The Atomic Energy Act does not preempt state prohibitions on uranium mining on private lands within state borders.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lincolnshire v. Intl. Union of Operating Engineers Local 399
New legislation in Illinois that bars passage of local ordinances prohibiting employers from compelling employees to associate with or fund unions renders the city of Lincolnshire’s argument that 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) extends to the political subdivisions of states moot.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton
Where federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Quarles v. United States
For sentencing purposes under 18 U.S.C. §924(e), a remaining-in burglary occurs when a defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in the building or structure. A state law will qualify for enhanced sentencing purposes so long as it substantially corresponds or is narrower than the federal statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service
Headline: Under the America Invents Act, a federal agency is not a “person” eligible to institute post-issuance review proceedings challenging a patent’s validity.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Azar v. Allina Health Services
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2), the implementation of new policy by the Department of Health and Human Services without statutory notice and comment results in the policy being vacated.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis
The charge-filing instruction of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a jurisdictional rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Mont v. United States
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), pretrial detention qualifies as “imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction” when subsequent sentencing credits that detention as time served, thereby tolling the period of supervised release.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Taggart v. Lorenzen, Executor of the Estate Of Brown
A court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order where there is not a ‘fair ground of doubt’ as to whether the creditor’s conduct might be lawful under the discharge order.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law