January 5 summaries
City of Escondido, California v. Marty Emmons
Government officials enjoy qualified immunity only when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established rights, both statutory and constitutional, of which a reasonable person would have known. This clearly established right must be specifically defined to trigger a determination of qualified immunity.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Shoop v. Hill
Whether the decision in Hill v. Anderson, 881 F. 3d 483 (2018) violated 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) by applying case law which was not “clearly established” at the time of state adjudication.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Culbertson v. Berryhill
Section 406 (a) and (b) of the Social Security Act separately address fees to be awarded to attorneys that represent claimants at the agency stage and in court, not an aggregate amount for both.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira
Courts, not arbitrators, determine the applicability of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, and the term “contracts of employment” applies broadly to include agreements to perform work.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Helsinn Healthcare v. TEVA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
A sale to a third party, even with a confidentiality obligation, may still qualify as a “sale” under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
February 7 summaries
Moore v. Texas
Under the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the State of Texas failed to apply appropriate standards for determining intellectual capacity in relation to capital punishment, which should be informed by current medical standards.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Dawson v. Steager
West Virginia engaged in unlawful discrimination in violation of 4 U.S.C. § 111 when it taxed the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retirees and exempted from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Timbs v. Indiana
The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eight Amendment is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Nutraceutical Corporation v. Lambert
The doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Garza v. Idaho
When an attorney’s ineffective assistance costs a defendant an appeal that the defendant would have otherwise pursued, prejudice to the defendant is presumed – even when that defendant has signed an appeal waiver.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Jam v. International Finance Corp.
Under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (IOIA), international organizations enjoy the same privileges and immunities as enjoyed by foreign governments, as such the immunity of international organizations is tethered to changes in immunity of foreign governments.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Madison v. Alabama
The Eighth Amendment permits execution of a prisoner who cannot remember committing the crime. Panetti v. Quarterman requires only the ability of the prisoner to comprehend the State's reason for the punishment and that judges look downstream to determine whether a specific mental condition may limit the prisoner's ability to comprehend the State's rationale at any time leading up to his execution.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
March 11 summaries
BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos
An award compensating for lost wages is subject to taxation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (“RRTA”).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall Street.com, LLC, et al
Registration of a copyright, for purposes of 17 U.S.C. §411(a), occurs when the Register of Copyrights registers a copyright. A copyright owner gains exclusive rights in his work upon its creation and may, upon registration, recover for a copyright infringement that occurred before registration under 17 U.S.C. §501(b) but must thereafter pursue registration pursuant to §411(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.
The Copyright Act’s reference to “full costs” does not authorize a court to award litigation expenses beyond the six categories specified by Congress.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries
In maritime tort context, product manufacturers have a duty to warn when a product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that danger is realizable by users.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Nielsen v. Preap
The mandatory detention provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1226(c) applies to an alien released from criminal custody even where the Department of Homeland Security does not take the alien into custody immediately after their release.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Washington State Dep’t of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.
The 1855 treaty between the United State and Yakama Nation forbids the State of Washington from imposing statutory taxes upon fuel importers of the Yakama Nation.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Frank v. Gaos
Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), establishes that Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP
A business engaged only in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings does not constitute a debt collector under section 1692a(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), with the exception of the limited purpose definition of section 1692f(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Consumer Credit
Republic of Sudan v. Harrison
The Foreign State Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1604,1608(a)(3), requires that service through mailing upon on a foreign state must be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the minister’s home country.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Sturgeon v. Frost
The Nation River in Alaska is not public land and the National Park Service is prohibited from regulating non-public land under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Lorenzo v. SEC
Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Rules 10b–5(a) and (c) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator did not “make” the statements and consequently falls outside Rule 10b–5(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
April 4 summaries
Biestek v. Berryhill
An expert’s refusal to provide data related to testimony about the availability of certain jobs does not preclude the expert’s testimony from constituting substantial evidence under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Bucklew v. Precythe
Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35 (2008) and Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain whether the challenged are facial or as-applied.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority
The waiver of immunity in the Tennessee Valley Authority’s "sue-and-be-sued" clause is not subject to a discretionary function exception of the kind in the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
May 10 summaries
Apple, Inc. v. Pepper
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois established a bright-line rule authorizing direct purchasers to bring suit against alleged antitrust violators.
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt
§3731(b)(2) of the False Claims Act applies to suits initiated by private persons where the government has declined to intervene and private persons of a non-intervened suit do not constitute officials of the United States for the purposes of triggering the three year limitation period of §3731(b)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt
States retain sovereign immunity when suits are brought by private parties in courts of other States, overruling Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Herrera v. Wyoming
Wyoming’s statehood did not abrogate an 1868 treaty between the United States and the Crow Indian Tribe regarding tribal members’ rights to hunt on "unoccupied lands" and Bighorn National Forest is not categorically "occupied."
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht
Absence of “clear evidence that the FDA would not approve a change to a label, the Court will not conclude that it was impossible… to comply with both federal and state requirements.”
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Mission Products Holdings, INC., v. Tempnology, LLC, NKA Old Cold LLC
A debtor's rejection of an executory contract in bankruptcy has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 365.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.
The disposal of fetal remains constitutes a legitimate governmental interest and governmental regulation will satisfy rational basis review even without perfect tailoring, but the regulation of selective abortions constitutes a novel legal issue that more appellate courts must consider before Supreme Court review.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., v. Jackson
28 U. S. C. §1441(a) and Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) §1453(b) removal provisions do not allow third-party defendants to remove a matter to federal court.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Nieves v. Bartlett
The existence of probable cause, examined under an objective standard, generally precludes retaliatory arrest claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Smith v. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
A dismissal for untimeliness by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council is a “final decision . . . made after a hearing” for purposes of allowing judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §405(g).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
June 29 summaries
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
July 0 summaries
August 0 summaries
September 0 summaries
October 0 summaries
November 1 summary
Thompson v. Hebdon
In Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006), the Supreme Court established that political contribution limits that are unfairly low prevent challengers from launching effective campaigns and therefore negatively impact democratic accountability.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
December 2 summaries
Rotkiske v. Klemm
The one-year statute of limitations under 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) begins to run on the date on which the alleged FDCPA violation occurs and not on the date that the violation is discovered, absent the application of an equitable doctrine.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Peter v. Nantkwest
Under section 145 of the Patent Act, the term “expenses” does not include attorney’s fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents