United States Supreme Court (21 summaries)
Ramos v. Louisiana
The Sixth Amendment’s protection against nonunanimous felony guilty verdicts applies to States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145 (1968)
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Allen v. Cooper Gov. of North Carolina
Congress lacks the authority to abrogate the government’ sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits under the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Hernandez v. Mesa
A Bivens remedy does not exist for Fourth or Fifth Amendment claims in a cross-border shooting context.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Department of Commerce v. New York
(1) The potential loss of federal funds from a citizenship question on the 2020 census impacting state population counts establishes Article III standing to sue. (2) The extensive authority granted to Congress and delegated to the Secretary of Commerce under the Enumeration Clause provides no basis to enjoin the Secretary from reinstating a citizenship question. (3) The Administrative Procedure Act reflects a presumption of judicial review that makes the Secretary’s decision amenable to judicial review. (4) Evidence of the Secretary’s intent to reinstate the citizenship question from the time he entered office conflicts with the given rationale for reinstating a citizenship question and warrants further explanation by the Department of Commerce for the basis of the Secretary’s decision.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Davis
18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B)’s definition of a crime of violence as an "offense that by its nature involves a risk of force" mandates the use of a categorical approach, making the clause unconstitutionally vague.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
American Legion v. American Humanist Assn.
Under the Establishment Clause, the passage of time gives rise to a presumption of constitutionality for monuments, symbols, and practices, even where such monuments, symbols, or practices include symbolic references to faith.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren
The Atomic Energy Act does not preempt state prohibitions on uranium mining on private lands within state borders.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lincolnshire v. Intl. Union of Operating Engineers Local 399
New legislation in Illinois that bars passage of local ordinances prohibiting employers from compelling employees to associate with or fund unions renders the city of Lincolnshire’s argument that 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) extends to the political subdivisions of states moot.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.
The disposal of fetal remains constitutes a legitimate governmental interest and governmental regulation will satisfy rational basis review even without perfect tailoring, but the regulation of selective abortions constitutes a novel legal issue that more appellate courts must consider before Supreme Court review.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt
§3731(b)(2) of the False Claims Act applies to suits initiated by private persons where the government has declined to intervene and private persons of a non-intervened suit do not constitute officials of the United States for the purposes of triggering the three year limitation period of §3731(b)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Biestek v. Berryhill
An expert’s refusal to provide data related to testimony about the availability of certain jobs does not preclude the expert’s testimony from constituting substantial evidence under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP
A business engaged only in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings does not constitute a debt collector under section 1692a(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), with the exception of the limited purpose definition of section 1692f(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Consumer Credit
Washington State Dep’t of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.
The 1855 treaty between the United State and Yakama Nation forbids the State of Washington from imposing statutory taxes upon fuel importers of the Yakama Nation.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.
The Copyright Act’s reference to “full costs” does not authorize a court to award litigation expenses beyond the six categories specified by Congress.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Moore v. Texas
Under the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the State of Texas failed to apply appropriate standards for determining intellectual capacity in relation to capital punishment, which should be informed by current medical standards.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
An area designated as a critical habitat under §1533(a)(3)(A)(i) must exist as a habitat for the species listed as endangered, and the Secretary of Interior’s decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat under §1533(b)(2) is subject to judicial review.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Abbott v. Perez
28 U. S. C. §1253 grants jurisdiction for review where an order has the same practical effect as an order granting or denying an injunction and past discrimination does not affect the presumption of legislative good faith in the case of a legislature’s redistricting plan.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
The statutory prohibition of certain apparel in polling places during Election Day serves the permissible objective of limiting distraction and partisan discord for voters exercising their civic duty, but such statutes must articulate a determinate scope to allow for reasoned application.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Jesner v. Arab Bank
Liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1350, Alien Tort Statute (ATS), does not extend to foreign corporations.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Wilson v. Sellers
A federal habeas court should presume that an unexplained decision by a reviewing state court adopts the same reasoning as that provided by the last related lower court opinion unless the state provides evidence of reliance on other grounds.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund
SLUSA’s amendment to the Securities Act of 1933 does not deprive state courts of jurisdiction over class actions only alleging violations of the 1933 Act and does not affect the 1933 Act’s removal ban.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (26 summaries)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Maryland National Capital Park v. Humanist Association
Whether the Establishment Clause requires removal or destruction of a cross-shaped World War I memorial on government property.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
United States v. Haymond
Whether the Tenth Circuit erred in holding “unconstitutional and unenforceable” the portions of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) that require revocation of a convicted sex offender’s supervised release and imposition of a five-year minimum term of imprisonment upon a finding by a preponderance of the evidence that the sex offender violated the conditions of his release.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Tennessee Wine and Spirit Retailers v. Byrd
Whether the Twenty-first Amendment empowers states, consistent with the dormant Commerce Clause, to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entities that have resided in-state for a specified time.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lorenzo v. SEC
Whether an insufficient fraudulent statement claim can form the basis for fraudulent scheme claim under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5(b).
Area(s) of Law:- Business Law
Sturgeon v. Frost
Whether the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) prohibits the National Park Service (NPS) from exercising regulatory control over State, Native Corporation, and private land physically located within the boundaries of the National Park System in Alaska.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law