October 3 summaries
Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc.
Whether § 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) prohibits a real estate settlement services provider from charging an unearned fee only if the fee is divided between two or more parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Mohamad v. Rajoub
(Whether the Torture Victim Protection Act includes corporations or organizations as possible defendants.)
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
United States v. Alvarez
(Whether the Stolen Valor Act is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.)
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
November 9 summaries
Armour v. Indianapolis
Whether the City of Indianapolis violated the 14th Amendment by forgiving outstanding assessments for some property owners while not offering refunds for others who had paid in full.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Astrue v. Capato
Whether a child conceived after his biological father's death and prohibited by state intestacy law from inheriting personal property is nonetheless eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services
Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's expansion of the Medicaid law exceeds Congress's power under the Spending Clause of Article I.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius
Whether the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must be invalidated because its mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance is nonseverable from the remainder of the Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida
(1) Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is beyond Congress’ Article I power because it includes a mandate for individuals to obtain health insurance or pay a monetary fine; and (2) Whether the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a), bars suits by challengers to the Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (11-204)
(1) Whether deference is owed to the to the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s sales exemption; and (2)whether the FLSA’s outside sale exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Hill v. United States and Dorsey v. United States
Whether the Fair Sentencing Act applies in a sentencing proceeding that takes place on or after the statute’s effective date when the underlying offense occurred prior to that date.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Southern Union Co. v. U.S.
Whether the Apprendi requirement, which requires any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, applies to criminal fines.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
F.A.A. v. Cooper
Whether a plaintiff who alleges only mental and emotional injuries can establish actual damages within the meaning of the civil remedies provision of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
December 3 summaries
Arizona v. United States
Whether an Arizona immigration law is preempted by federal law, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak and Patchak v. Salazar
Whether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has standing to challenge a decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act, and (2) whether a suit of that nature is an action under the Quiet Title Act, which supplants section 702 of the Administrative Procedures Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank
Whether a debtor may pursue a Chapter 11 plan that proposes to sell assets free of liens without allowing the secured creditor to credit bid, but instead providing it with the indubitable equivalent of its claim under Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law