Jessy Morris

United States Supreme Court (14 summaries)

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org., Inc.

The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), does not provide protection to the annotations contained in Georgia’s official annotated code.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund

Environmental Protection Agency permits are required only for pollutants directly discharged into navigable waters or when the functional equivalent of a direct discharge has occurred.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.

The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), does not require findings of willful conduct to order an award of profits for trademark infringement.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee

The application for stay presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is granted. The District Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed to the extent it requires the State to count absentee ballots postmarked after April 7, 2020.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison

The Foreign State Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1604,1608(a)(3), requires that service through mailing upon on a foreign state must be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the minister’s home country.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Nielsen v. Preap

The mandatory detention provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1226(c) applies to an alien released from criminal custody even where the Department of Homeland Security does not take the alien into custody immediately after their release.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Shoop v. Hill

Whether the decision in Hill v. Anderson, 881 F. 3d 483 (2018) violated 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) by applying case law which was not “clearly established” at the time of state adjudication.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Stitt

Whether burglary of a non permanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as ‘burglary’ under the Armed Career Criminal Act,18 U. S. C. §924(e)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Currier v. Virginia

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the 14th Amendment does not bar the re-litigating of issues or introduction of evidence for a severed offense, where the Defendant requested severance of the trials and has been acquitted of the related charges.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States

Employee stock options are not taxable compensation for purposes of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach

Existence of probable cause for an arrest does not bar a claim under 42 USC § 1983 where an official policy of retaliation against the exercise of free speech is alleged.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Koons v. United States

Those whose sentences are “based on” mandatory minimums and substantial assistance to the Government do not qualify for sentence reductions under revised “Guideline ranges.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.

The provision prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3701, violates the anti-commandeering principle of the Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group

Inter partes review of patent validity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6, 316(c) does not trigger Article III requirements for a jury trial, nor does it violate the Seventh Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (18 summaries)

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

Whether the Religion Clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment discrimination claims brought by an employee against his or her religious employer, where the employee carried out important religious functions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Herrera v. United States

(1) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)? (2) If a conduct-based approach applies, whether a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery charge based on a stash-house robbery sting qualifies as a crime of violence?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

City of Pensacola, Florida v. Kondrat'yev

1. Whether plaintiffs have standing to sue under the Establishment Clause when their only alleged injury consists of the feelings of “offense” produced by observing a passive religious display. 2. Whether, under Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), passive religious displays with a long historical pedigree must be torn down because of claims that they have the purpose or effect of endorsing religion

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue

Does it violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student- aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Jefferson v. United States

1. Whether an application for a search warrant to examine the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest must show more to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the cell phone than only an opinion that criminal gang members commonly use cell phones to communicate about their plans 2. Whether the § 924(c) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Opati v. Republic of Sudan

Whether, consistent with this Court's decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively; thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § l605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Ward v. United States

1. Does erroneous advice from trial counsel as stated herein constitute ‘Ineffective assistance of counsel’?” 2. Did the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals abuse its discretion by not granting Petitioner an evidentiary hearing for Petitioner’s allegation that Petitioner received erroneous advice from trial counsel on the plea phase of trial?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, D/B/A Argus Leader

1. Does the statutory term “confidential” in FOIA Exemption 4 bear its ordinary meaning, thus requiring the Government to withhold all “commercial or financial information” that is confidentially held and not publicly disseminated—regardless of whether a party establishes substantial competitive harm from disclosure—which would resolve at least five circuit splits? 2. Alternatively, if the Court retains the substantial competitive-harm test, is that test satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor (as the First and Tenth Circuits have held), or must the party opposing disclosure establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share (as the Ninth and D.C. Circuits have held, and as the Eighth Circuit required here)?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Rehaif v. United States

Whether the “knowingly” provision of § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, as has been urged by then-Judge, now Justice Gorsuch, or whether it applies only to the possession element, as has been held by the courts

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Gray v. Wilke

Whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 502 to review an interpretive rule reflecting Department of Veterans Affairs definitive interpretation of its own regulation, even if VA chooses to promulgate that rule through its adjudication manual.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Return Mail, Inc v. United States Postal Service and the United States

Whether the government is a “person” who may petition to institute review proceedings under the America Invents Act, 112 P.L. 29, 125 Stat. 284.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

ALEX M. AZAR II v. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL.

Whether Section 1395hh(a)(2) requires HHS to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before providing instructions to a Medicare Administrative Contractor that makes initial determinations of payments due under Medicare, when those instructions rest on a non legally-binding interpretation of a relevant statutory provision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Gilbert P. Hyatt

Whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into another State’s courts without its consent, should be overruled.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Dawson v. Steager

Whether Supreme Court precedent and the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity bar states from exempting groups of state retirees from state income tax while discriminating against similarly situated federal retirees based on the source of their retirement income.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Washington Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.

Whether the Yakama Treaty of 1855 creates a right for tribal members to avoid state taxes on off-reservation commercial activities that make use of public highways.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Virginia Uranium Inc., v. Warren

Whether the AEA preempts a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the NRC?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Stokeling v. United States

Whether a state robbery offense which requires a showing of overcoming "victim resistance" for conviction is a "violent felony" subject to Armed Career Criminal sentencing enhancements, if even slight force may satisfy the element of overcoming “victim resistance.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Kelly v. Preap

Whether the mandatory detention provision of 18 U.S.C. § 1226(c) applies to an alien released from criminal custody where the Department of Homeland Security does not take the alien into custody immediately after their release.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Back to Top