United States Supreme Court (10 summaries)
Kansas v. Glover
When an officer runs a license plate and learns that the owner has a revoked license—absent knowledge of any contradictory facts—it is reasonable for the officer to infer that the driver is also the owner of the vehicle, and the traffic stop is justified.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Davis v. United States
When a plain error affects substantial rights, neither Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor federal precedent shields any category of errors from plain-error review.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma
ERISA §1113's three-year statute of limitations for breaches in which a plaintiff has "actual knowledge" requires a factual showing that the plaintiff was actually aware of the information that constitutes the alleged breach. A showing of constructive knowledge is insufficient.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC
A creditor’s motion for relief from the automatic stay initiates a distinct proceeding terminating in a final, appealable order when the bankruptcy court rules dispositively on the motion.
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Peter v. Nantkwest
Under section 145 of the Patent Act, the term “expenses” does not include attorney’s fees.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
United States v. Haymond
The mandatory minimum sentence imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 3853(k) violates the right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust
States may not tax trusts based solely on the in-state residency of a beneficiary.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service
Headline: Under the America Invents Act, a federal agency is not a “person” eligible to institute post-issuance review proceedings challenging a patent’s validity.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Nieves v. Bartlett
The existence of probable cause, examined under an objective standard, generally precludes retaliatory arrest claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Apple, Inc. v. Pepper
Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois established a bright-line rule authorizing direct purchasers to bring suit against alleged antitrust violators.
Area(s) of Law:- Antitrust
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (18 summaries)
Borden v. United States
Does the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (the “ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) encompass crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia
(1) Whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable? (2) Whether Employment Div. v. Smith should be revisited? (3) Whether a government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Pereida v. Barr
Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Walker v. United States
Whether a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Whether, as applied to Respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Cook v. United States
Whether § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lin v. United States
Is the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) void for vagueness? Should this Court hold petitioner’s case for a ruling in United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 782 (2019) (No. 18-431)?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Martin v. United States
(1) Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) invalidated the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). (2) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness for the same reasons that this Court found 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) void for vagueness in Dimaya.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Parks v. United States
Whether a new trial is warranted where the District Court failed to instruct the jury that, in order to convict a person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it must find that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he possessed a firearm and “knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (June 21, 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Mann v. United States
Whether the definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Whether courts should determine ownership of a tax refund paid to an affiliated group based on the federal common law “Bob Richards rule,” as three Circuits hold, or based on the law of the relevant State, as four Circuits hold.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Ross, Sec. of Commerce v. California
Whether the district court erred in enjoining the Secretary of Commerce from reinstating a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Trump v. NAACP
Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is judicially reviewable. Whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Watkins v. United States
(1) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924( c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness, a question that divides seven courts of appeals. (2) Whether Hobbs Act conspiracy can automatically be characterized as a categorical crime of violence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gray v. Wilkie, Sec. of VA
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 502 to review an interpretive rule reflecting the Department of Veterans Affairs’ definitive interpretation of its own regulation, even if the VA chooses to promulgate that rule through its adjudication manual.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Richardson v. United States
Whether the First Step Act of 2018 applies to defendants who were sentenced prior to its enactment but whose convictions and sentences remain pending on direct review.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
McKinney v. Arizona
(1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted. (2) Whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) requires resentencing.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Mont v. United States
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), pretrial detention qualifies as “imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction” when subsequent sentencing credits that detention as time served, thereby tolling the period of supervised release.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (3 summaries)
Green Thumb Landscape and Maintenance v. BOLI
Under ORS 183.482(8)(c), the Court will review the Bureau of Labor and Industries' (BOLI’s) "factual findings for substantial evidence." The Court "does not reweigh the evidence or 'examine the record to determine whether evidence supports a view of the facts different from those found by the agency.'" Multnomah County Sheriff’s Office v. Edwards, 361 Or 761, 776, 399 P3d 969 (2017). "Rather, an agency’s findings of fact are binding on [the court] unless those findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record viewed as a whole. Id.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
State v. Omar
Under State v. Smith, 190 Or. App. 576 (2003), when a motion for substitute counsel has been denied, the proper disposition is to vacate the conviction and remand for a hearing. If it is found that the defendant should have received substitute counsel, then the defendant should receive a new trial; if not, the defendant’s conviction should be reinstated.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Davilla
Under Miller, when a juvenile faces a de facto life sentence, the sentencer is required to “take into account how children are different, and how those differences counsel against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 479–80 (2012). Failure to do so violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing