United States Supreme Court (15 summaries)
BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos
An award compensating for lost wages is subject to taxation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (“RRTA”).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Nutraceutical Corporation v. Lambert
The doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Helsinn Healthcare v. TEVA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
A sale to a third party, even with a confidentiality obligation, may still qualify as a “sale” under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira
Courts, not arbitrators, determine the applicability of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, and the term “contracts of employment” applies broadly to include agreements to perform work.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido
Construction of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967's definitional provisions includes “States or political subsidies” irrespective of its number of employees.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Trump v. Hawaii
Proclamation No. 9645 is within the President’s broad discretion Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and § 1152(a)(1)(A) to suspend entry into the United States and Respondents did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits that the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Ohio v. American Express
Anti-steering provisions within a merchant contract are not per-se anticompetitive under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Gill v. Whitford
A “citizen’s abstract interest in policies adopted by the legislature” is insufficient to demonstrate Article III standing.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al.
Members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission exhibited an impermissible hostility towards religion and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren
Prior decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502 U.S. 251, does not foreclose tribal sovereign immunity defenses for in rem actions as traditionally believed.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Sessions v. Dimaya
With respect to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 18 U.S.C. §16(b) is unconstitutionally vague; in part because the similarly worded “residual clause” in the Armed Career Criminal Act was held unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Texas v. New Mexico
The United States may intervene in a lawsuit between to defend its “distinctively federal interests,” where various factors collectively persuade the Court to permit such intervention.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
Rubin, et al., v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.
Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act identifies property that will be available for attachment and execution in satisfaction of § 1605(A) judgments, but it does not in itself divest that property of foreign sovereign immunity.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
CNH Industrial N.V. v. Jack Reese
A contract is not ambiguous unless it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, and the Yard-Man inferences cannot generate a reasonable interpretation because they are not “ordinary principles of contract law.”
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law
Kernan v. Cuero
There is no precedent that mandates specific performance for a criminal defendant who, after the State filed an amended complaint that required a higher mandatory minimum sentence than the initial complaint, pleads guilty to the amended complaint and is sentenced to serve a longer mandatory minimum.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (14 summaries)
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
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
Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt
Whether a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene and, if so, whether the relator constitutes an “official of the United States” for purposes of Section 3731(b)(2)?
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, LLC
Whether “registration of [a] copyright claim has been made” within the meaning of § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, deposit, and fee to the Copyright Office, as the Fifth and Ninth Circuits have held, or only once the Copyright Office acts on that application, as the Tenth and, in the decision below, the Eleventh Circuit have held.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Timbs v. Indiana
Whether the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
BNSF Railway Company v. Loos
Whether a railroad’s payment to an employee for time lost from work is subject to employment taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Workers Compensation
Frank v. Gaos
Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Chavez-Meza v. United States
Whether a district court must explain its decision when deciding not to grant a proportional sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) when the reasons are not otherwise apparent from the record, or is it sufficient that the reduction is issued on a pre-printed form order containing boilerplate language as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Lagos v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers costs that were “neither required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim’s own purposes and unprompted by any official government action.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
China Agritech, Inc. v. Michael Resh, Et Al.
Whether the rule from American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida
Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Dahda v. United States
Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Janus v. American Federation
Whether mandatory public-sector agency fees are compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
McCoy v. Louisiana
Whether defense counsel's decision to concede guilt in a capital case, over the defendant’s express objection, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure