January 6 summaries
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.
Whether the government debt-exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act violates the First Amendment and whether severing the exception from the remainder of the statute would constitute the proper remedy for any such violation of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n
Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’s statute regulating PBM’s drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of States, is preempt by ERISA, in contravention of this Court’s precedent that ERISA does not preempt rate regulation.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board
Whether, under section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 355(f), and section 8 of the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231g, the Railroad Retirement Board’s denial of a request to reopen a prior benefits determination is a “final decision” subject to judicial review.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Chiafalo v. Washington
Whether the U.S. Constitution provides presidential electors discretion in casting their ballot and whether state law seeking to regulate how presidential electors vote violates the U.S. Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Dist. Court
Whether the “arise out of or related to” requirement is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania
Whether the agencies had statutory authority under the ACA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
February 1 summary
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
(1) Whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable? (2) Whether Employment Div. v. Smith should be revisited? (3) Whether a government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
March 5 summaries
Borden v. United States
Does the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (the “ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) encompass crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
California v. Texas
1. Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision in Section 5000A(a). 2. Whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional. 3. If so, whether the minimum coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club
Whether the deliberative process privilege incorporated in Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act protects a federal agency from compelled disclosure of draft documents created as part of a formal consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act where the consultation process resulted in subsequent modification of said draft documents.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Jones v. Mississippi
Whether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Brownback v. King
Whether 28 U.S.C. §2676 of the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") bars a Bivens action involving the same claimant, injuries, and government employees of an FTCA claim in which the United States obtained a final judgment in its favor on the ground that a private person would not exist as liable under state tort law for the injuries alleged.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
April 1 summary
Van Buren v. United States
Whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
May 5 summaries
CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS
Whether the Anti-Injunction Act’s bar on lawsuits for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of taxes also bars challenges to unlawful regulatory mandates issued by administrative agencies that are not taxes.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Edwards v. Vannoy
Petition granted limited to the following question: Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Dept. of Justice v. House Comm. on Judiciary
Whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp
(1) Whether the “expropriation exception” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, (“FSIA”) 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3), which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human-rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property. (2) Whether the doctrine of international comity is unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, and even where the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Republic of Hungary v. Simon
Petition granted limited to the following question: May the district court abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, where former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II, and where the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies?
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
June 3 summaries
Niz-Chavaz, Agusto v. Barr, Att’y Gen.
Whether, to serve notice in accordance with section 1229(a) and trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve a specific document that includes all the information identified in section 1229(a), or whether the government can serve that information over the course of as many documents and as much time as it chooses.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Albence, Matthew T. v. Chavez, Maria A.
Whether the detention of an alien who is subject to a reinstated removal order and who is pursuing withholding or deferral of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. 1231, or instead by 8 U.S.C. 1226.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Henry Schein, Inc., Petitioner v. Archer and White Sales, Inc.
Whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
July 4 summaries
AMG Capital Mgmt., LLC v. FTC
Whether § 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTCA"), by authorizing “injunction[s],” also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission (the "Commission") to demand monetary relief such as restitution—and if so, the scope of the limits or requirements for such relief.
Collins v. Mnuchin
(1) Whether the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s (FHFA) structure violates the separation of powers; and (2) whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Facebook, Inc. v. Duguid
Petition granted limited to the following question: Whether the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system, (“ATDS”) in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 191 (“TCPA”) encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski
Whether a government's post-filing change of an unconstitutional policy moots nominal-damages claims that vindicate the government's past, completed violation of a plaintiffs constitutional right.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
August 0 summaries
September 0 summaries
October 1 summary
FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project
Whether the court of appeals erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the FCC orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency’s cross-ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
November 4 summaries
Davis v. Saul
Whether a claimant seeking disability benefits or supplemental security income under the Social Security Act must exhaust an Appointments Clause challenge with the administrative law judge whose appointment the claimant is challenging in order to obtain judicial review of that challenge.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid
Whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Caniglia v. Strom
Whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Cooley, Joshua J.
Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
December 4 summaries
Azar, Sec. of H&HS v. Gresham
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in concluding that the secretary of health and human services may not authorize demonstration projects to test requirements that are designed to promote the provision of health-care coverage by means of facilitating the transition of Medicaid beneficiaries to commercial coverage and improving their health.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Goldman Sachs Group v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
(1) Whether a defendant in a securities class action may rebut the presumption of classwide reliance recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements in showing that the statements had no impact on the price of the security, even though that evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality. (2) Whether a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption has only a burden of production or also the ultimate burden of persuasion.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
NCAA v. Alston, Shawne
Whether the Sherman Act authorizes a court to subject the product-defining rules of a joint venture to full Rule of Reason review, and to hold those rules unlawful if, in the court’s view, they are not the least restrictive means that could have been used to accomplish their procompetitive goal.
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
Transunion LLC v. Ramirez, Sergio L.
Whether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure