Barr v. Lee
Unless and until the Supreme Court decides that the use of single-dose Pentobarbital as the Federal Government’s lethal injection protocol constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment, that proposition will not support a preliminary injunction of scheduled executions.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Congress has the sole power to disestablish a Native American reservation; the Major Crimes Act requires federal prosecution of certain crimes within “Indian country,” including the Creek Reservation in Oklahoma.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Trump v. Mazars, USA, LLP
Interbranch conflicts between the President and Congress calls for a level of scrutiny higher than what is required for an ordinary subpoena, but lower than what is required to overcome executive privilege.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Trump v. Vance
Neither the Supremacy Clause, nor Article II categorically preclude, or necessitate a heightened standard for, state criminal subpoenas issued to a sitting President.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) provision granted the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) virtually unbridled discretion to recognize and craft exemptions from its Guidelines and Congress “declined to expressly require contraceptive coverage in the ACA itself.”
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Political Consultants, Inc.
The 2015 amendment to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 excluding robocalls made to collect government debts from the general prohibition against robocalls to cellular phones is unconstitutional and therefore severed.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Chiafalo v. Washington
Article II does not “expressly prohibit[] States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does.” And that “’[l]ong settled and established practice’ may have ‘great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions.’” quoting The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655, 689 (1929).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law