Cameron, Att'y Gen. of KY v. EMW Women's Surgical Center
Whether a state attorney general vested with the power to defend state law should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the law.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Mays v. Hines
Under 28 U.S.C §2254(d)(2), a writ of habeas corpus shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless adjudication resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidenced presented in the State court proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, et al.
There need not be a causal relationship between a defendant’s conduct in a forum and a claim to establish specific personal jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Servotronics, INC., v. Rolls-Royce PLC & The Boeing Co.
Whether the discretion granted to district courts in 28 U.S.C. §1782(a) to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in “a foreign or international tribunal” encompasses private commercial arbitral tribunals, as the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held, or excludes such tribunals without expressing an exclusionary intent, as the Second, Fifth, and, in the case below, the Seventh Circuit, have held.
Area(s) of Law:- Alternative Dispute Resolution
United States v. Tsarnaev
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit erred in concluding that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s capital sentences must be vacated on the ground that the district court, during its 21-day voir dire, did not ask each prospective juror for a specific accounting of the pretrial media coverage that he or she had read, heard, or seen about Respondent's case; and (2) whether the district court committed reversible error at the penalty phase of Respondent's trial by excluding evidence that Respondent's older brother was allegedly involved in different crimes two years before the offenses for which Respondent was convicted.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Thompson v. Clark
The Petition is Limited to the Following Question: Whether the rule that a plaintiff must await favorable termination before bringing a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process requires the plaintiff to show that the criminal proceeding against him has “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” Laskar v. Hurd, 972 F.3d 1278, 1293 (11th Cir. 2020), or that the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence,” Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018); see also Laskar, 972 F.3d at 1293 (acknowledging 7-1 circuit conflict).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
United States v. Vaello-Madero, Jose L.
Whether Congress violated the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing Supplemental Security Income—a program that provides benefits to needy aged, blind, and disabled individuals—in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and in the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to a negotiated covenant, but not extending it to Puerto Rico.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law