January 11 summaries
Emulex v. Varjabedian
Whether Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on a negligent misstatement or omission made in connection with a tender offer.
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Iancu v. Brunetti
Whether Section 1052(a)’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Taggart v. Lorenzen
Whether, under the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor's good-faith belief that the discharge injunction does not apply precludes a finding of civil contempt.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, D/B/A Argus Leader
1. Does the statutory term “confidential” in FOIA Exemption 4 bear its ordinary meaning, thus requiring the Government to withhold all “commercial or financial information” that is confidentially held and not publicly disseminated—regardless of whether a party establishes substantial competitive harm from disclosure—which would resolve at least five circuit splits? 2. Alternatively, if the Court retains the substantial competitive-harm test, is that test satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor (as the First and Tenth Circuits have held), or must the party opposing disclosure establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share (as the Ninth and D.C. Circuits have held, and as the Eighth Circuit required here)?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
McDonough v. Smith
Whether the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim based on fabrication of evidence in criminal proceedings begins to run when those proceedings terminate in the defendant's favor or whether it begins to run when the defendant becomes aware of the tainted evidence and its improper use.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Mitchell v. Wisconsin
Whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberly Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust
Whether the Due Process Clause prohibits states from taxing trusts based on trust beneficiaries’ in-state residency?
Area(s) of Law:- Trusts and Estates
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton
Whether, under OCSLA, state law is borrowed as the applicable federal law only when there is a gap in the coverage of federal law, as the Fifth Circuit has held, or whenever state law pertains to the subject matter of a lawsuit and is not preempted by inconsistent federal law, as the Ninth Circuit has held.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Quarles v. United States of America
Whether Taylor's definition of generic burglary requires proof that intent to commit a crime was present at the time of unlawful entry or first unlawful remaining, or whether it is enough that the defendant formed the intent to commit a crime at any time while “remaining in” the building or structure.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rehaif v. United States
Whether the “knowingly” provision of § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, as has been urged by then-Judge, now Justice Gorsuch, or whether it applies only to the possession element, as has been held by the courts
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
NY State Rifle & Pistol v. New York, NY
Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
February 2 summaries
County of Maui, HI v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Rotkiske v. Klemm
Whether the “discovery rule” applies to toll the one (1) year statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq., as the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held but the Third Circuit (sua sponte en banc) has held contrarily.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
March 5 summaries
Iancu v. NantKwest, Inc.
Whether the phrase “[a]ll expenses of the proceedings” in the Patent Act encompasses personnel expenses incurred by the United States Patent and Trademark Office through employees defending the agency in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 145.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Kahler v. Kansas
Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to abolish the insanity defense
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kansas v. Garcia
Whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act preempts and bars the use of identifying information contained in I-9 forms that also appears in non-IRCA documents to prosecute state law crimes.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Mathena, Warden v. Malvo
Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in concluding—in direct conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts—that a decision of this Court (Montgomery) addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision (Miller) applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Ramos v. Louisiana
Whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment Guarantee of a unanimous verdict
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
April 5 summaries
Kansas v. Glover
Whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Barton v. Barr, Att'y. Gen.
Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] . . . inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Bostock v. Clayton County, GA
Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Citgo Asphalt Refining v. Frescati Shipping Co.
Whether under federal maritime law a safe berth clause in a voyage charter contract is a guarantee of a ship’s safety, as the Third Circuit below and the Second Circuit have held, or a duty of due diligence, as the Fifth Circuit has held.
Area(s) of Law:- Admiralty
May 2 summaries
Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC
Whether an order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay is a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Hernandez v. Mesa
(1) Whether, when plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established fourth and fifth amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, the federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) and (2) if not, whether the Westfall Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment insofar as it preempts state-law tort suits for damages against rogue federal law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment for which there is no alternative legal remedy
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
June 46 summaries
Allen v. Cooper, Gov. of NC
Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, Pub. L. No. 101-553, 104 Stat. 2749 (1990), in providing remedies for authors of original expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by States.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States
Whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant’s sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. Jander
Whether the“more harm than good” pleading standard set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014) can be satisfied by generalized allegations that the harm of an inevitable disclosure of an alleged fraud generally increases over time.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
1. Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies is a “challenge” to EPA’s cleanup jurisdictionally barred by § 113 of CERCLA. 2. Whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a “potentially responsible party” that must seek EPA’s approval under CERCLA § 122(e)(6) before engaging in remedial action, even if EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup. 3. Whether CERCLA preempts state common law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African Am.-Owned Media
Does a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fail in the absence of but-for causation?
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma
“Whether the three-year limitations period in Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1113(2), which runs from “the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation,” bars suit where all of the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendants more than three years before the plaintiff filed the complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information.”
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
McKinney v. Arizona
(1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted. (2) Whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) requires resentencing.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Monasky v. Taglieri
1) Whether a district court’s determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo, as seven circuits have held, under a deferential version of de novo review, as the First Circuit has held, or under clear-error review, as the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held. 2) Where an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, whether a subjective agreement between the infant’s parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor and Indus.
Whether Oregon violated the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment by compelling the Kleins to design and create a custom wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding ritual, in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Richardson v. United States
Whether the First Step Act of 2018 applies to defendants who were sentenced prior to its enactment but whose convictions and sentences remain pending on direct review.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Herrold
Whether a state offense that criminalizes continued unpermitted presence in a dwelling following the formation of intent to commit a crime has “the basic elements of unlawful * * * remaining in * * * a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime,” Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990), thereby qualifying as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Banister v. Davis
Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans v. Wilkie, Sec. of VA
Whether this Court Should Grant Certiorari to Resolve an Important Point of Law and a Conflict Between Circuits Concerning Judicial Review of an Interpretive VA Regulation Under the Administrative Procedures Act and Whether It Should Be Foreclosed Under 38 U.S.C. § 502 When the Veterans Judicial Reform Act Provides the Sole Avenue for Review of the Secretary’s Decisions
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call
Whether the American Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), permits appeal of the PTAB’s decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that the Act's § 315(b) time bar did not apply.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
Whether the government edicts doctrine extends to––and thus renders uncopyrightable––works that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Gray v. Wilkie, Sec. of VA
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 502 to review an interpretive rule reflecting the Department of Veterans Affairs’ definitive interpretation of its own regulation, even if the VA chooses to promulgate that rule through its adjudication manual.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Att'y Gen.
Whether a request for equitable tolling by a person subject to the criminal alien bar is a factual determination such that judicial review is precluded by 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(C) or a legal determination such that it is reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(D) as a question of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Maine Community Health Options v. United States
Whether a congressional intent derived from the legislative history of an appropriations rider can impliedly repeal a statutory payment obligation of the government.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Kisor v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Under the Auer deference doctrine, courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of a regulation only where such regulation is ambiguous; unambiguous regulations must be given the effect of their plain meaning.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Allen v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924 require the government to prove a criminal defendant’s mens rea as to each substantive element of the enumerated statutory offenses, including the defendant’s knowledge of the fact that renders illegal the otherwise constitutionally protected possession of a firearm.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Babb v. Sec’y, Department of Veterans Affairs
Petition granted limited to the following question: Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any “discrimination based on age,” 29 U.S.C. §633(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Barrett v. United States
Whether the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness, a question that evenly divides six Courts of Appeals.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
City of Pensacola, Florida v. Kondrat'yev
1. Whether plaintiffs have standing to sue under the Establishment Clause when their only alleged injury consists of the feelings of “offense” produced by observing a passive religious display. 2. Whether, under Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), passive religious displays with a long historical pedigree must be torn down because of claims that they have the purpose or effect of endorsing religion
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Dept. of Commerce v. USDC SD NY
Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials —when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Douglas v. United States
Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue
Does it violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student- aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless
Whether the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) permits a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement to compel arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Hall v. United States
Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the federal sentencing of an individual already sentenced by a state for the same conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, CA
(1) Whether taking and due process claims arising from an administrative disapproval ripen under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission et al. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) upon disapproval of an initial application or only upon a final, definitive determination of permitted use of property. (2) Whether the procedure set up by the California Supreme Court requiring that all challenges to a subdivision decision be filed within 90 days - and barring later claims - provides an available and adequate state remedy under Williamson for taking claims which do not ripen until later.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Jefferson v. United States
1. Whether an application for a search warrant to examine the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest must show more to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the cell phone than only an opinion that criminal gang members commonly use cell phones to communicate about their plans 2. Whether the § 924(c) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kelly v. United States
Whether a public official defrauds the government by citing a traffic study as the purpose of realigning the George Washington Bridge and causing a gridlock when political motives drove the public official’s actions.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. V. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc.
Whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles can bar a defendant from raising defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Mann v. United States
Whether the definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Moody v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. §924(a) provides for criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate commerce absent proof that they knew of their felon status, or of the firearm’s movement in interstate commerce?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Opati v. Republic of Sudan
Whether, consistent with this Court's decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively; thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § l605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Reed v. United States
1. Whether the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) crime 2. Whether expert testimony concerning a defendant’s intellectual disability and mental health conditions – such as Petitioner’s full-scale IQ of 61 and diagnosis of schizophrenia paranoid type – is relevant and admissible to support a justification defense to a § 922(g) crime 3. Whether a mandatory-minimum sentence of 15 years in prison violates the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment, because the sentencing court is afforded no discretion to impose a lower sentence based on the defendant’s intellectual disability and mental health conditions
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Whether courts should determine ownership of a tax refund paid to an affiliated group based on the federal common law “Bob Richards rule,” as three Circuits hold, or based on the law of the relevant State, as four Circuits hold.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Rodriguez v. United States
Whether the ‘risk of force’ clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.
Whether, under section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), willful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of an infringer’s profits for a violation of section 43(a), id. § 1125(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Ross, Sec. of Commerce v. California
Whether the district court erred in enjoining the Secretary of Commerce from reinstating a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Shular v. United States
Whether the determination of a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act requires the same categorical approach used in the determination of a “violent felony” under the same statute
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sperling v. United States of America
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) is unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as held by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Haymond, 869 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
(1) Whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek injunctive relief against fiduciary misconduct under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; (2) whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek restoration of plan losses caused by fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; and (3) whether petitioners have demonstrated Article III standing.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Trump v. NAACP
Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is judicially reviewable. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Ward v. United States
1. Does erroneous advice from trial counsel as stated herein constitute ‘Ineffective assistance of counsel’?” 2. Did the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals abuse its discretion by not granting Petitioner an evidentiary hearing for Petitioner’s allegation that Petitioner received erroneous advice from trial counsel on the plea phase of trial?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Watkins v. United States
(1) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924( c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness, a question that divides seven courts of appeals. (2) Whether Hobbs Act conspiracy can automatically be characterized as a categorical crime of violence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
July 0 summaries
August 0 summaries
September 0 summaries
October 26 summaries
Bachiller v. United States
(1) Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), applies retroactively to a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion? (2) Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3) is unconstitutionally vague pursuant to Johnson? (3) Whether the Eleventh Circuit's rule that reasonable jurists could not debate an issue foreclosed by binding circuit precedent?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Contreras v. United States
Whether the Texas offense of aggravated assault is equivalent to the generic form of that offense and whether 18 U.S.C 924(a) provides for criminal liability in the absence of a showing that the defendant knew of his felony status.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Cook v. United States
Whether § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Duhart v. United States
Is the residual clause definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Enclarity, Inc., et al v. Fulton
Whether faxes that only request information and propose no commercial transaction with recipients are “advertisements” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act which prohibits the sending of any "unsolicited advertisemet[s]" to fax machines. 47 U.S.C. § 227(B)(1)(C).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Escourse-Westbrook v. United States
Whether the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Davis, deciding 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(3)(B)'s definition of "crime of violence" is constitutionally vague, will retroactively apply to cases on review and whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability to help resolve the issue.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Gilbert v. United States
(1) Whether substantive reasonableness review requires or permits the courts of appeals to “substantively second guess” the district court and/or to “reweigh the sentencing factors”? (2) Whether 18 U.S.C. §924(a) provides for criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate commerce absent proof that they knew of their felon status, or of the firearm’s movement in interstate commerce?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Greer v. United States
1. Whether—in light of intervening authority in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)—Congress may rely on Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) to criminalize intrastate possession of a firearm on the sole basis that the firearm once moved through interstate commerce. 2. Whether the “knowingly” provision of § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, as has been urged by then-Judge, now Justice Gorsuch, or whether it applies only to the possession element, as has been held by the courts.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Hale v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. §924(a) provides for criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate commerce absent proof that they knew of their felon status, or of the firearm’s movement in interstate commerce?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Herrera v. United States
(1) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)? (2) If a conduct-based approach applies, whether a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery charge based on a stash-house robbery sting qualifies as a crime of violence?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Householder v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., et al
Whether partisan gerrymandering cases lack justiciability and, if not, what standards govern such claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Humbert v. United States
1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit should have granted COA as to whether petitioner’s Fla. Stat. § 893.13 drug offense qualifies within the ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense” where mens rea is not even an implied element of the definition of a “serious drug offense” in § 924(e) or 4B1.2(b), according to their precedential opinion in United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th. Cir. 2014)? 2. Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari for a Florida Conviction for resisting arrest with violence Fla. Stat. § 843.01 to now consider if it qualifies under the ACCA after its most recent decision in Franklin v. United States, No. 17-8401? 3. Whether the Petitioner is warranted GVR in light of Franklin v. United States?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Jackson v. United States
(1) Does an inaccurate jury instruction on an element of a crime violate due process of law? (2) Does the Constitution allow a district judge to effectively nullify a jury finding of acquittal?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Lin v. United States
Is the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) void for vagueness? Should this Court hold petitioner’s case for a ruling in United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 782 (2019) (No. 18-431)?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Martin v. United States
(1) Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) invalidated the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). (2) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness for the same reasons that this Court found 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) void for vagueness in Dimaya.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
McCormick v. United States
Whether the Fourth Circuit's judgment should be vacated and this case remanded for further review in light of this Court's recent opinion in Rehaif v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L. Ed. 2d 594 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Mendoza v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)’s definition of “crime of violence” exists as unconstitutionally vague and, in the event the Court finds the definition of a “crime of violence” does not violate the vagueness doctrine, whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) exists as unconstitutional where a court dispenses with the requirement that a jury determine a defendant’s guilt for each element of the offense of a conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Parks v. United States
Whether a new trial is warranted where the District Court failed to instruct the jury that, in order to convict a person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it must find that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he possessed a firearm and “knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (June 21, 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Robinson v. United States
Whether North Carolina breaking and Entering, which criminalizes the breaking and entering into "any other structure designed to house or secure within it any activity or property," is broader than the Armed Career Criminal Act burglary.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rodriguez v. United States
1. Whether the residual clause in Section 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness based on the holdings in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018); 2. and, if so, whether the unconstitutional vagueness of the residual clause in Section 924(c)(3)(B) can be cured by resort to a conduct-based approach instead of the categorical approach?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Solomon v. United States
(1) If the Supreme Court in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) holds §924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague, is that ruling retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review? (2) If the court in Davis reinterprets §924(c)(3)(B) to require a “conduct-based” approach because the statute is unconstitutionally vague under the categorical approach, does a successive §2255 petition challenging a conviction under the unconstitutional categorical approach “contain . . . a new rule of constitutional law” as required by §2255(h)(2)?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Webster v. United States
Whether a Wisconsin burglary statute provides different factual means and thus different ways of committing a single crime that would make Wisconsin burglary broader than generic burglary and unable to qualify as a prior conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Whether, as applied to Respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
Does a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g)?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Nasrallah v. Barr, Attorney General
Whether the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s structure, which vests significant executive power in a single director who the U.S. President can only remove for cause, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers and, if the CFPB’s structure constitutes a violation of the separation of powers, whether the provision deemed unconstitutional can be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
November 6 summaries
Liu v. SEC
Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may seek and obtain disgorgement from a court as “equitable relief” for a securities law violation even though this Court has determined that such disgorgement is a penalty.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al., v. Booking.com B.V.
Whether the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.
Whether a software interface falls within the scope of copyright protection and whether use of a software interface in the creation of a new computer program constitutes fair use.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
United States v. Briggs
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding—contrary to its own longstanding precedent—that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Walker v. United States
Whether a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Tanzin v. Tanvir
Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
December 9 summaries
Carney v. Adams
(1) Whether a State Constitutional provision that mandates political balance in electing judges and which results in the election of either Republicans or Democrats from Delaware’s major political parties violates the First Amendment. (2) Whether a provision limiting the number of judicial positions a major political party may hold can remain operative without the requirement that members of the second major political party fill any remaining seats. (3) Whether the respondent has demonstrated Article III standing.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, Inc.
Whether the First Amendment bars enforcement of the directive issued by Congress that certain recipients of federal funds have a policy of explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of accepting such federal funds, with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with a domestic entity.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Whether Oklahoma courts can continue to unlawfully exercise, under state law, criminal jurisdiction as “justiciable matter” in Indian country over Indians accused of major crimes enumerated under the Indian Major Crimes Act—which are under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Trump v. Mazars
Whether the House Committee has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue this subpoena.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Trump v. Vance
Whether a grand jury subpoena on accountants that hold a president’s personal records violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Chicago v. Fulton
Whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, 11 U.S.C § 362, to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru
Whether the Religion Clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment discrimination claims brought by an employee against his or her religious employer, where the employee carried out important religious functions.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Pereida v. Barr
Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Torres v. Madrid
Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force constitutes a seizure under the Fourth Amendment or whether physical force must succeed in the detainment of a suspect to constitute a seizure.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law