Biden v. Texas
“[T]he Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action.”
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
West Virginia v. EPA
Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act should be narrowly construed to regulate individual power plants. The CPP's scheme to create generation shifting for the nation's power sector as a whole is not within its authority under Section 111(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Concepcion v. United States
The First Step Act allows a district court to consider intervening changes of law or fact when exercising their discretion to modify a sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment do not permit the government to censor an individual engaging in personal religious observances.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Xiulu Ruan v. United States
21 U. S. C. § 841’s “knowingly or intentionally” mens rea applies to the statute’s “except as authorized” clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, for Valley Hospital Medical Center
“Entitled to benefits” in 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(I) is to be read as meeting the statutory criteria expressed in §§ 426(a)–(b), not actually having used Medicare funds for treatment.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.
“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including . . . the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Berger v. N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP
North Carolina's legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in litigation regarding voter I.D. laws because they represent a state's interest which is not otherwise being represented.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Nance v. Ward
Prisoners may maintain method-of-execution challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if their proposed alternative method is not authorized by state law.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen
The Second Amendment prohibits states from preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm in public because they had not demonstrated a need for self-defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
States may not invoke sovereign immunity as a legal defense to USERRA suits.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Vega v. Tekoh
A Miranda violation is not itself a Fifth Amendment violation, and the use of an "un-Mirandized" statement does not provide a valid basis for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Carson v. Makin
Programs that prohibit private beneficiaries from using public funds at religious entities violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Marietta Mem'l Hosp. Emp. Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.
When health care plan terms are applied uniformly to all plan participants, the plan does not violate the Medicare Secondary Payer statute because it does not “differentiate in the benefits it provides” or takes into account Medicare eligibility.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Shoop v. Twyford
"A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action, 28 U.S.C. §1651(a), when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief."
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
U.S. v. Taylor
An attempted, Hobbs Act robbery, does not qualify as a crime of violence because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened the use of force.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Washington
40 U.S.C §3172’s federal waiver of immunity does not “clearly and unambiguously” authorize a state to enact a discriminatory law that facially singles out the Federal Government for unfavorable treatment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra
"[U]nless HHS conducts a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
George v. McDonough
A change in law does not constitute “clear and unmistakable error” of the sort that will allow collateral relief from a final Veterans Affairs benefit decision under 38 U.S.C. § 7111.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Golan v. Saada
The court of appeal imposed “an atextual, categorical requirement that courts consider all possible ameliorative measures” on a discretionary decision, inconsistent with the treaty’s goals.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana
"[T]he FAA preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate."
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
The Restoration Act does not turn “state gaming laws . . . [into] . . . surrogate federal law on tribal lands.”
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
Denezpi v. United States
“Dual-sovereignty doctrine; An offense defined by one sovereign is necessarily a different offense from that of another sovereign. The two offenses can therefore be separately prosecuted without offending the Double Jeopardy Clause – even if they have identical elements and could not be separately prosecuted if enacted by a single sovereign.” Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. ____, ____ (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Garland v. Gonzalez
District Courts do not have jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6) does not require the Government to offer noncitizens detained for more than six months bond hearings in which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Kemp v. United States
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions alleging a legal error by a judge are subject to the 1-year limitation.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.
A party lacking governmental involvement does not constitute a “foreign or international tribunal” under 28 U.S.C. §1782.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Egbert v. Boule
“[I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts”
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Gallardo v. Marstiller
States are permitted to “seek reimbursement from settlement payments allocated for future medical care” under §1396k(a)(1)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Segel v. Fitzgerald
"[T]he Bankruptcy Clause offers Congress flexibility, but does not permit the arbitrary, disparate treatment of similarly situated debtors based on geography.”
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon
“[A]ny class of workers directly involved in transporting goods across state or international borders falls within [the Federal Arbitration Act] §1’s exemption.”
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration