Shinn v. Ramirez
Does application of the equitable rule this Court announced in Martinez v. Ryan render 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) inapplicable to a federal court’s merits review of a claim for habeas relief?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Niz-Chavez v. Garland
“[T]he stop-time rule is triggered when the alien is served a notice to appear under section 1229(a).”
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Alaska v. Wright
A habeas petitioner does not remain "in custody" under a conviction "after the sentence imposed for it has fully expired, merely because of the possibility that the prior conviction will be used to enhance the sentences imposed for any subsequent crimes of which he is convicted.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U. S. 492 (1989).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC
Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not explicitly authorize the Federal Trade Commission to obtain court-ordered monetary relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Carr v. Saul
Administrative proceedings must be adversarial in nature for a court to impose the requirement of issue exhaustion.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Jones v. Mississippi
Miller v. Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana do not require a sentencer to make a finding that a defendant under the age of eighteen is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
To the extent that computer interface code is copyrightable, the copying of a small portion of that code to transform it into a mobile operating system is fair use.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid
Under 47 U.S.C. §227(a)(1)(A), an autodialer must have the capacity “to use a random or sequential number generator” to either “store or produce phone numbers” to be called.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project
Under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must review its ownership rules every four years to repeal or modify any rules that no longer serve the public interest. In conducting its analysis under Section 202(h), the FCC must consider the effects of the rules on competition, localism, viewpoint diversity, and minority and female ownership of broadcast media outlets.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Florida v. Georgia
The Supreme Court “has recognized for more than a century its inherent authority, as part of the Constitution’s grant of original jurisdiction, to equitably apportion interstate streams between States.” Kansas v. Nebraska, 574 U.S. 445, 454 (2015). Consequently, given the competing sovereign interests in such cases, a complaining State bears a burden much greater than does a private party seeking an injunction.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights