January 12 summaries
Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, Att'y Gen. of CA
Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P.
Whether, as the Fifth Circuit alone has held, district courts “lack[] discretion to deny or reduce” appellate costs deemed “taxable” in district court under Fed. R. App. P. 39(e).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Gov't of Guam v. United States
1. Whether a non-CERCLA settlement can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B). 2. Whether a settlement that expressly disclaims any liability determination and leaves the settling party exposed to future liability can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Greer v. United States
Whether when applying plain-error review based upon an intervening United States Supreme Court decision, a circuit court of appeals may review matters outside the trial record to determine whether the error affected a defendant’s substantial rights or impacted the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial?
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Ref. v. Renewable Fuels Ass'n
In order to qualify for a hardship exemption under § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) of the Renewable Fuel Standards, does a small refinery need to receive uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L.
Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off-campus.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
Whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Mnuchin, Sec'y of Treasury v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation
Whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations (ANCs) established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are “Indian Tribe[s]” for purposes of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 42 U.S.C. 801(g)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Sanchez, Jose S. v. Wolf, Sec. of Homeland
Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of Temporary Protected Status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Terry, Tarahrick v. United States
Whether pre-August 3, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
United States v. Gary, Michael A.
Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a), is automatically entitled to plain-error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that offense is knowledge of his status as a felon, regardless of whether he can show that the district court’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Palomar-Santiago, Refugio
Whether a defendant automatically satisfies all three of the prerequisites under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) solely by showing that he was removed for a crime that would not be considered a removable offense under current circuit law, even if he cannot independently demonstrate administrative exhaustion or deprivation of the opportunity for judicial review.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
February 3 summaries
PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey
Whether the NGA delegates to FERC certificate holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dept. of Homeland Sec. v. New York
1. Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that provision, are proper parties to challenge the final rule. 2. Whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Wooden, William D. v. United States
Did the Sixth Circuit err by expanding the score of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) in the absence of clear statutory definition with regard to the vague term "committed on occasions differed from one another"?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
March 7 summaries
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
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
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
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
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
April 4 summaries
Mike Brown v. Ervine Davenport
May a federal habeas court grant relief based solely on its conclusion that the Brecht test is satisfied, as the Sixth Circuit held, or must the court also find that the state court’s Chapman application was unreasonable under § 2254(d)(1), as the Second, Third, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have held?
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Tandon v. Newsom
Even if the government withdraws or modifies a COVID restriction in the course of litigation, that does not necessarily moot the case. And so long as a case is not moot, litigants otherwise entitled to emergency injunctive relief remain entitled to such relief where the applicants “remain under a constant threat” that government officials will use their power to reinstate the challenged restrictions.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Houston Community College System v. Wilson
Whether the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause limits a local government’s censure power.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Zubaydah
Whether the Court of Appeals erred when it rejected the United States’ assertion of the state-secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential harms to the national security, and required discovery to proceed further under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a) against former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contractors on matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
May 2 summaries
Badgerow v. Walters
Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA where the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
June 1 summary
Sanders v. United States
Whether the community caretaker exception to the Fourth Amendment allowed law enforcement to make warrantless entry into a home where: (1) they suspected a male had fought with and caused minor scratches to the face of his girlfriend, who assured officers that she and her children were fine; and (2) they heard a child crying inside after expressly assenting to the girlfriend reentering the home to ask the male to come out.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure