United States Supreme Court (11 summaries)
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
A state court retains jurisdiction to hear claims arising under state common law despite Congress’ grant of exclusive original jurisdiction to the district courts to hear controversies arising under 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. Landowners within a Superfund site may be considered potentially responsible parties for purposes of needing EPA approval to take remedial action under 42 U.S.C. § 9622(e)(6).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Babb v. Wilkie
The plain language of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 shows that age need not be the but-for cause of a personnel action for there to be a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr
An appellate court may review a question of equitable tolling under the Limited Review Provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act as undisputed or established facts present a question of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Monasky v. Tagliere
A child's habitual residence under 22 U.S.C. §9003(b) depends on the totality of the circumstances and it is not necessary for there to be an actual agreement between the parents. Further, a first-impression determination of habitual residence is subject to review for clear error.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Feliciano
The Puerto Rican courts lacked jurisdiction to issue payment and seizure orders after the case was removed to federal district court for Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. Jander
In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), the United States Supreme Court held that claims for breach of the duty of prudence by fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 must be supported by a plausible allegation from the plaintiff that a prudent fiduciary in the same circumstances could have taken an alternative action that would not have done the fund more harm than good.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Rotkiske v. Klemm
The one-year statute of limitations under 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) begins to run on the date on which the alleged FDCPA violation occurs and not on the date that the violation is discovered, absent the application of an equitable doctrine.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Iancu v. Brunetti
The prohibition against immoral or scandalous trademarks in 15 U.S.C. §1052(a) is viewpoint based discrimination and violates the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Flowers v. Mississippi
A state may not use preemptory challenges that are substantially motivated by discriminatory intent to strike prospective jurors in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and United States Supreme Court precedent.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Quarles v. United States
For sentencing purposes under 18 U.S.C. §924(e), a remaining-in burglary occurs when a defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in the building or structure. A state law will qualify for enhanced sentencing purposes so long as it substantially corresponds or is narrower than the federal statute.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis
The charge-filing instruction of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a jurisdictional rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (17 summaries)
California v. Texas
1. Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision in Section 5000A(a). 2. Whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional. 3. If so, whether the minimum coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Chicago v. Fulton
Whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, 11 U.S.C § 362, to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Trump v. Mazars
Whether the House Committee has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue this subpoena.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Briggs
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding—contrary to its own longstanding precedent—that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
Does a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g)?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Greer v. United States
1. Whether—in light of intervening authority in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)—Congress may rely on Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) to criminalize intrastate possession of a firearm on the sole basis that the firearm once moved through interstate commerce. 2. 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
Humbert v. United States
1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit should have granted COA as to whether petitioner’s Fla. Stat. § 893.13 drug offense qualifies within the ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense” where mens rea is not even an implied element of the definition of a “serious drug offense” in § 924(e) or 4B1.2(b), according to their precedential opinion in United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th. Cir. 2014)? 2. Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari for a Florida Conviction for resisting arrest with violence Fla. Stat. § 843.01 to now consider if it qualifies under the ACCA after its most recent decision in Franklin v. United States, No. 17-8401? 3. Whether the Petitioner is warranted GVR in light of Franklin v. United States?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
McCormick v. United States
Whether the Fourth Circuit's judgment should be vacated and this case remanded for further review in light of this Court's recent opinion in Rehaif v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L. Ed. 2d 594 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rodriguez v. United States
1. Whether the residual clause in Section 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness based on the holdings in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018); 2. and, if so, whether the unconstitutional vagueness of the residual clause in Section 924(c)(3)(B) can be cured by resort to a conduct-based approach instead of the categorical approach?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Allen v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924 require the government to prove a criminal defendant’s mens rea as to each substantive element of the enumerated statutory offenses, including the defendant’s knowledge of the fact that renders illegal the otherwise constitutionally protected possession of a firearm.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Commerce v. USDC SD NY
Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials —when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Reed v. United States
1. Whether the “knowingly” provision of 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) crime 2. Whether expert testimony concerning a defendant’s intellectual disability and mental health conditions – such as Petitioner’s full-scale IQ of 61 and diagnosis of schizophrenia paranoid type – is relevant and admissible to support a justification defense to a § 922(g) crime 3. Whether a mandatory-minimum sentence of 15 years in prison violates the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment, because the sentencing court is afforded no discretion to impose a lower sentence based on the defendant’s intellectual disability and mental health conditions
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.
Whether, under section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), willful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of an infringer’s profits for a violation of section 43(a), id. § 1125(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
(1) Whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek injunctive relief against fiduciary misconduct under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; (2) whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek restoration of plan losses caused by fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; and (3) whether petitioners have demonstrated Article III standing.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Banister v. Davis
Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Herrold
Whether a state offense that criminalizes continued unpermitted presence in a dwelling following the formation of intent to commit a crime has “the basic elements of unlawful * * * remaining in * * * a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime,” Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990), thereby qualifying as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African Am.-Owned Media
Does a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 fail in the absence of but-for causation?
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure