United States Supreme Court (12 summaries)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, New York
Petitioners' claim for declaratory and injunctive relief sought against New York City is moot and any new claim for damages may be decided by the lower courts.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP
35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board's decisions regarding the application of §315(b)'s time limitation.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Azar v. Allina Health Services
Under 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2), the implementation of new policy by the Department of Health and Human Services without statutory notice and comment results in the policy being vacated.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Sturgeon v. Frost
The Nation River in Alaska is not public land and the National Park Service is prohibited from regulating non-public land under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Land Use
Culbertson v. Berryhill
Section 406 (a) and (b) of the Social Security Act separately address fees to be awarded to attorneys that represent claimants at the agency stage and in court, not an aggregate amount for both.
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act's notification requirements likely violate the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.
Damages for lost foreign profits are recoverable under §284 of the Patent Act if the domestic nature of the infringement is proven under §271(f)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Lucia v. SEC
The Security and Exchange Commission's administrative law judges are “Officers of the United States,” and are therefore subject to the Appointments Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Rosales-Mireles v. United States
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), a defendant is ordinarily entitled to relief if there was a miscalculation in determining the Sentencing Guidelines Range.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
The Ohio voter removal process does not violate the National Voter Registration Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Hughes v. United States
Sentence reductions are available for plea deals under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) when the guideline range is lowered, so long as the range was considered when the sentence was imposed.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
The National Labor Relations Act does not overrule the enforcement of individual arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (13 summaries)
Gilbert v. United States
(1) Whether substantive reasonableness review requires or permits the courts of appeals to “substantively second guess” the district court and/or to “reweigh the sentencing factors”? (2) Whether 18 U.S.C. §924(a) provides for criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate commerce absent proof that they knew of their felon status, or of the firearm’s movement in interstate commerce?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Jackson v. United States
(1) Does an inaccurate jury instruction on an element of a crime violate due process of law? (2) Does the Constitution allow a district judge to effectively nullify a jury finding of acquittal?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Barrett v. United States
Whether the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness, a question that evenly divides six Courts of Appeals.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, CA
(1) Whether taking and due process claims arising from an administrative disapproval ripen under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission et al. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) upon disapproval of an initial application or only upon a final, definitive determination of permitted use of property. (2) Whether the procedure set up by the California Supreme Court requiring that all challenges to a subdivision decision be filed within 90 days - and barring later claims - provides an available and adequate state remedy under Williamson for taking claims which do not ripen until later.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Bostock v. Clayton County, GA
Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
McDonough v. Smith
Whether the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim based on fabrication of evidence in criminal proceedings begins to run when those proceedings terminate in the defendant's favor or whether it begins to run when the defendant becomes aware of the tainted evidence and its improper use.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Iancu v. Brunetti
Whether Section 1052(a)’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Dutra Group v. Batterton
Whether punitive damages may be awarded to a Jones Act seaman in a personal injury suit alleging a breach of the general maritime duty to provide a sea-worthy vessel.
Area(s) of Law:- Admiralty
Smith v. Berryhill
Whether the Appeals Council’s decision to reject a disability claim on the ground that the claimant’s appeal was untimely is a “final decision” subject to judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.
Whether the Copyright Act’s allowance of “full costs” (17 U.S.C. § 505) to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have held, or also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the Ninth Circuit holds.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc.
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to decline to enforce an agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator if the court concludes the claim of arbitrability is “wholly groundless.”
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries
Whether products-liability defendants can be held liable under maritime law for injuries caused by products that they did not make, sell, or distribute.
Area(s) of Law:- Admiralty
Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration