January 2 summaries
Chicago v. Fulton
The retention of estate property, post-bankruptcy filing, does not violate §362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code because that provision is a "stay" of "any act" to "exercise control" over the assets of the estate which refers to affirmative acts disrupting the status quo of property.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Unicolors, Inc. v. H & M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
“Did the Ninth Circuit err * * * in holding that 17 USC § 411 requires referral to the Copyright Office where there is no indicia of fraud or material error as to the work at issue in the subject copyright registration.”
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
February 4 summaries
Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
The expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act incorporates the domestic takings rule, which makes a sovereign’s taking of its own nationals’ property a domestic affair.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board
Judicial review is available, under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (RRA), to the same degree available under the judicial review provision of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). Therefore, the qualification for judicial review under the RRA is contingent on the meaning of the phrase “any final decision” as used in §355(f) of the RUIA.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
American Medical Assn. v. Cochran, Sec. of H&HS
In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Rule imposing major changes on the Title X family planning program. See 84 Fed. Reg. 7,714 (Mar. 4, 2019). The Rule both prohibits and compels certain pregnancy-related speech between a Title X provider and her patient, proscribing abortion-related information but requiring information about non-abortion options—regardless of what the patient wants. The Rule also imposes burdensome physical separation requirements on any Title X provider engaging in abortion-related activities outside the Title X program. 1. Whether the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. 2. Whether the Rule violates the Title X appropriations act, which requires that “all pregnancy counseling” under Title X 'shall be nondirective.' 3. Whether the Rule violates Section 1554 of the Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18114, which requires that HHS 'shall not promulgate any regulation' that harms patient care in any one of six ways, including by 'interfer[ing] with communications' between a patient and her provider.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Brownback v. King
A plaintiff needs to plausibly allege, under state law, “the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant” to survive both a Rule 12(b)(6) merits determination and a subject-matter jurisdiction determination. §1346(b)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
March 5 summaries
Pereida v. Wilkinson
Specific nonpermanent residents bear the burn to show they do not have a conviction of a disqualifying offense when seeking cancellation of a lawful removal order under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The alien fails to carry that burden if his conviction falls under the statute listing multiple offenses, including those that are disqualifying, and the record shows ambiguity on which crime was the basis of the conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States Fish and Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc.
The deliberative process privilege shields predecisional and deliberative documents from Freedom of Information Act requests, but documents which communicate an agency’s settled position on a matter are not protected.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
"[For Article III standing requirements], [t]he plaintiff must have (1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision." Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (internal citation omitted).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Torres v. Madrid
The use of physical force against a person with the intent to restrain is a seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes, even if the person is not subdued.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Wooden v. United States
Convictions stemming from a single criminal episode count as a single “occasion” under 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
April 11 summaries
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
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
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
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
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
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
May 7 summaries
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Under Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 204 (1996), and despite the fact that appellate courts “may not reach beyond the certified order to address other orders made in the case,” appellate courts “may address any issue fairly included within the certified order because it is the order that is appealable, and not the controlling question identified by the district court.”
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Caniglia v. Strom et al.
The “community caretaking exception” to warrantless searches articulated in Cady v. Dombrowski does not apply to homes, because there is a constitutional difference between vehicles and homes.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
CIC Services, LLC v. IRS
The Anti-Injunction Act bars any “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). However, a reporting requirement is not a tax, and a suit brought to set aside such a rule is not one to restrain the “assessment or collection” of a tax—even if the information will help the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collect future tax revenue. See Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, 575 U.S. 1, 9-10 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Edwards v. Vannoy
New procedural rules announced by the Supreme Court are not retroactively applied on federal collateral review.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Guam v. United States
Contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) may be pursued only after settlement of a “CERCLA-specific liability.”
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
United States v. Palomar-Santiago
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that each statutory requirement under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d) is mandatory.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
San Antonio v. Hotels.com
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 governs the taxation of appellate “costs,” and the question in this case is whether a district court has the discretion to deny or reduce those costs.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
June 21 summaries
Garland v. Ming Dai
The INA provides that a reviewing court must accept “administrative findings” as “conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary.” §1252(b)(4)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Cooley
The Court relied on its decision in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), saying that a tribe retains authority over the conduct of non-Indians “when that conduct threatens or has a direct effect on the political integrity, economic security, or the health and welfare of the tribe.”
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
Van Buren v. United States
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), the phrase “exceeds authorized access” is limited by the phrase “entitled so to obtain,” such that an individual cannot to have been said to violate the statute for obtaining information from a computer that they are otherwise authorized to access, even if the individual accessed the information for improper purposes.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
FBI v. Fazaga
Whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence.
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Sanchez v. Mayoraks
The conferral of Temporary Protected Status does not admit foreign nationals to the United States and therefore “does not make an unlawful entrant … eligible under § 1255 for adjustment to LPR status.”
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Borden v. United States
The ACCA applies to individuals who have committed three or more acts of violence with a mens rea greater than recklessness.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Terry v. U.S.
In light of the clear text, we hold that §2(a) of the Fair Sentencing Act modified the statutory penalties only for subparagraph (A) and (B) crack offenses—that is, the offenses that triggered mandatory-minimum penalties.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Fulton v. Philadelphia
Maximizing the number of foster parents, protecting the City from liability, and ensuring equal treatment of prospective foster parents and children were not "interests of the highest order" and, therefore, are not sufficient to survive strict scrutiny.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
The generic nature of a misrepresentation is important evidence of price impact, even though that same evidence may be relevant to materiality. Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
National Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. Alston
The rule of reason standard requires a court to engage in a fact specific inquiry of the market power and market structure to measure the competitive impact of restraints on competition and is required when the restraint at issue involves complex structures.
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
United States v. Arthrex, Inc.
Under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Administrative Patent Judges are principal officers who must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
A state regulation that appropriates for labor unions the right of access of agricultural employer's property is a per se taking under the fourth and fifth amendments.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lange v. California
Fourth Amendment precedents point toward assessing case by case the exigencies arising from misdemeanants’ flight. When the totality of circumstances shows an emergency—a need to act before it is possible to get a warrant—the police may act without waiting.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Assn.
Under the RFP, “a small refinery may at any time petition the Administrator for an extension of the exemption under subparagraph (A) for the reason of disproportionate economic hardship.” 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez
To possess standing in a class action suit seeking damages against a private defendant in federal court, a plaintiff must be concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation; risk of future harm is insufficient to establish standing.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation
ANCs are Indian Tribes and thus are eligible to receive funding from the CARES Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Lombardo v. St. Louis
On summary judgment, courts must apply “careful, context-specific analysis” in excessive force cases.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco
The Supreme Court held that Respondent’s requirement to "execute the lifetime lease" was a final agency action and that the government action constituted "an actual, concrete injury," and "administrative 'exhaustion of state remedies was not a prerequisite for a takings claim when the government has reached a conclusive position.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
The decision in Westinghouse v. Formica Insulation Co., 266 U.S. 342, 350 (1924) provided that assignor estoppel is a principle of fairness. “If one lawfully conveys to another a patented right,” the Court reasoned, “fair dealing should prevent him from derogating from the title he has assigned.”
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
15 U. S. C. § 717f(h) authorizes Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or States.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez
8 U. S. C. §1231 not §1226 governs the detention of aliens subject to reinstated orders of removal.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
July 3 summaries
California v. Texas
“Where a standing theory rests on speculation about the decision of an independent third party (here an individual's decision to enroll in a program like Medicaid), the plaintiff must show at the least “that third parties will likely react in predictable ways.” Department of Commerce v. New York, 588 U.S. ___, ___, 139 S. Ct. 2551, 2566, 204 L. Ed. 2d 978.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
Despite the “sufficiently important governmental interest” in preventing fraud in charitable organizations, the universal compelled disclosure requirement of major donors was not “narrowly tailored” to that interest in order to pass "exacting scrutiny" as applied to burdens on freedom of association.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
“The State’s ‘compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures’ would suffice to avoid § 2 liability.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 529 U. S. 1, 4 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
August 0 summaries
September 0 summaries
October 0 summaries
November 1 summary
Mississippi v. Tennessee
Aquifers are subject to remedy from the courts under equitable apportionment.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
December 1 summary
Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson
Sovereign immunity allows a pre-enforcement challenge to state legislation under the U.S. Constitution to proceed beyond the motion to dismiss stage against litigants with enforcement power against abortion providers, but not state judges, clerks, the state attorney general, or private parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity