Willamette Law Online

( 310 summaries )

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions Updates

Opinions

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens

Civil Procedure: A defendant's notice of removal only needs to include a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy is more than the jurisdictional threshold; it does not need to contain evidentiary submissions.

(Filing Date: 12-15-2014)

Heien v North Carolina

Criminal Procedure: A stop initiated by an Officer's reasonable mistake of law is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

(Filing Date: 12-15-2014)

United States v. State of California

Constitutional Law: The fifth supplemental decree of United States v. California pursuant to the Submerged Lands Act is granted.

(Filing Date: 12-15-2014)

Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk

Labor Law: Time spent in post-work security screenings, and waiting in line for those screenings, is not compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

(Filing Date: 12-09-2014)

Warger v. Shauers

Evidence: Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror's affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate that the other juror was dishonest during jury selection.

(Filing Date: 12-09-2014)

Glebe v. Frost

Appellate Procedure: A limitation on closing argument is not a structural error, warranting automatic reversal, but rather allows the possibility that such a limitation is subject to harmless error review.

(Filing Date: 11-17-2014)

Carroll v. Carman

Qualified Immunity: Government officials retain qualified immunity unless “existing precedent [ . . . ] placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.”

(Filing Date: 11-10-2014)

Johnson v. City of Shelby

Civil Rights § 1983: Where a constitutional claim is levied directly against a municipality, there is no heightened pleading rule which requires plaintiffs seeking damages for civil rights violations to expressly invoke 42 U.S.C. §1983 in their complaint.

(Filing Date: 11-10-2014)

Lopez v. Smith

Habeas Corpus: Under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d), a federal court may grant habeas relief to a state prisoner only if the state court’s decision was contrary to established Federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court.

(Filing Date: 10-06-2014)

Williams v. Johnson

Habeas Corpus: The appropriate standard of review when a state court overlooks a federal claim is the standard set forth in 28 § U.S.C. 2254(d).

(Filing Date: 07-01-2014)

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

First Amendment: The contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act substantially burdens a closely held corporation's free exercise of religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

(Filing Date: 06-30-2014)

Harris v. Quinn

Constitutional Law: The First Amendment prohibits collecting an agency fee from non-public employees who do not support or wish to join a union.

(Filing Date: 06-30-2014)

McCullen v. Coakley

Constitutional Law: Banning the presence of all but an exempt few from the area around the entrances to reproductive health facilities unconstitutionally burdens the public's First Amendment rights.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2014)

National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning et al.

Constitutional Law: When there is a vacancy, the Recess Appointment Clause enables the President to appoint an officer to the vacancy if the Senate is in recess, but not when the Senate is not officially adjourned.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2014)

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.

Copyright: Under the language and purpose of the Copyright Act of 1976, contemporaneous transmission of broadcast television signals over the Internet are public performances whenever the signals are made available to the public.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2014)

Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer

Corporations: There is no "presumption of prudence" for an Employee Stock Ownership Plan fiduciary; they are subject only to the duty of prudence that applies to all ERISA fiduciaries in general, with the exception of the diversification requirement.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2014)

Riley v. California

Criminal Procedure: Police may not search an arrested individual’s cell phone data without a warrant.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2014)

Halliburton Co. et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., FKA Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.

Corporations: When investors can prove their reliance on a business' misrepresentation in determining whether to buy or sell company stock, investors can recover damages in a private securities fraud action.

(Filing Date: 06-23-2014)

Loughrin v. United States

Criminal Law: 18 U.S.C. §1344(2) does not require the government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution.

(Filing Date: 06-23-2014)

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.

Environmental Law: EPA cannot treat greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act as a pollutant, unless the source is required to obtain a permit because it emits other pollutants.

(Filing Date: 06-23-2014)

Alice Corporation PTY. LTD. v. CLS Bank International et al.

Patents: When a patent is drawn to an abstract idea, the idea is not eligible for patent protection.

(Filing Date: 06-19-2014)

Lane v. Franks

First Amendment: Truthful subpoenaed testimony by public employees is protected speech under the First Amendment and government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for violating statutory or constitutional rights that are not clearly established.

(Filing Date: 06-19-2014)

United States v. Clarke

Tax Law: A taxpayer has the right to challenge the Internal Revenue Service’s reasons for issuing a summons when that taxpayer offers credible evidence to support a plausible charge.

(Filing Date: 06-19-2014)

Abramski v. United States

Criminal Law: Misrepresentations on Question 11.a on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives form 4473 for gun ownership are material to violating §922(a)(6), lawful sale of a gun.

(Filing Date: 06-16-2014)

Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd.

Sovereign Immunity: The Federal Sovereign Immunities Act does not protect sovereign debtors against postjudgment discovery.

(Filing Date: 06-16-2014)

Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

Constitutional Law: When determining if a party meets Article III standing requirements, a credible threat of enforcement meets the injury in fact portion of the standing requirements.

(Filing Date: 06-16-2014)

Clark v. Rameker

Bankruptcy Law: Funds contained in an inherited individual retirement account are not considered “retirement funds” for purposes of the bankruptcy exemption.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2014)

POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.

Administrative Law: When a federal statute, such as the Lanham Act, is complementary with a federal statute, such as the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and neither explicitly provide otherwise, there is no preclusion.

(Filing Date: 06-12-2014)

CTS Corp. v. Waldburger

Civil Procedure: Section 9658 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 preempts state statutes of limitations, but does not preempt state statutes of repose.

(Filing Date: 06-09-2014)

Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison

Bankruptcy Law: When hearing a Stern claim — certain "core" bankruptcy claims over which bankruptcy courts lack the power to grant final adjudications — bankruptcy courts may issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for district courts to review de novo.

(Filing Date: 06-09-2014)

Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, et. al.

Immigration: The Board of Immigration Appeals interpretation of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), which limits the automatic conversion of visa priority dates of visa petition derivative beneficiaries upon aging out, is reasonable as the Board is entitled to Chevron deference.

(Filing Date: 06-09-2014)

Bond v. United States

Criminal Law: 18 U.S.C. §229(a) does not reach crimes like simple assault due to state sovereignty.

(Filing Date: 06-02-2014)

Limelight Networks, Inc v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.

Patents: A defendant is not liable for inducing patent infringement when there has been no direct infringement upon the patent.

(Filing Date: 06-02-2014)

Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.

Patents: A patent’s indefiniteness renders it invalid if its claims fail to inform skilled artisans about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.

(Filing Date: 06-02-2014)

Hall v. Florida

Sentencing: An IQ threshold requirement, which bars a defendant from presenting intellectual disability evidence, is unconstitutional when that requirement disregards established medical practice, ignores inherent imprecision of an IQ test, and is inconsistent with the majority of the States’ legislation.

(Filing Date: 05-27-2014)

Martinez v. Illinois

Criminal Procedure: Jeopardy attaches when a jury is empanelled and sworn, thus a not-guilty verdict cannot be appealed without subjecting a defendant to double jeopardy.

(Filing Date: 05-27-2014)

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Tribal Law: The Indian Gambling Regulatory Act does not abrogate tribal sovereign immunity when gaming activities are conducted off of Indian land.

(Filing Date: 05-27-2014)

Plumhoff v. Rickard

Qualified Immunity: (1) A party may immediately appeal the denial of a summary judgment motion when it is based on a qualified immunity claim. (2) Qualified immunity applies to officials sued under § 1983 unless the claimant shows that the official violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.

(Filing Date: 05-27-2014)

Wood v. Moss

Qualified Immunity: There is no "clearly established" law that ensures that groups with different viewpoints are positioned similarly when presidential safety is at issue.

(Filing Date: 05-27-2014)

Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.

Civil Procedure: Where Congress has provided a statute of limitations under Section 507(b) of the Copyright Act, the defense of laches is only available in extraordinary circumstances.

(Filing Date: 05-19-2014)

Robers v. United States

Sentencing: When the "property" covered by The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act is money used to acquire collateral, the value of the collateral at the time of sale must be used in determining the offset.

(Filing Date: 05-05-2014)

Tolan v. Cotton

Qualified Immunity: When ruling on a motion for summary judgment in cases dealing with qualified immunity, courts must weigh the evidence and all justifiable inferences in the nonmoving party’s favor.

(Filing Date: 05-05-2014)

Town of Greece, New York v. Galloway, et al.

First Amendment: There is no violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause when a town meeting is opened with a prayer, given the precedence in legislative history.

(Filing Date: 05-05-2014)

Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation

Administrative Law: The Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the Clean Air Act and the regulations promulgated in furtherance of that act are reasonable and subject to deference.

(Filing Date: 04-29-2014)

Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.

Appellate Procedure: An appellate court should review all aspects of a district court’s §285 determination for abuse of discretion only.

(Filing Date: 04-29-2014)

Octane Fitness, LLC. v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.

Patents: The Brooks Furniture framework is unduly rigid and inconsistent with the statutory text of 35 U.S.C. § 285.

(Filing Date: 04-29-2014)

Paroline v. United States

Remedies: Restitution for victims of child pornography is proper under §2259, and determined on a case-by-case basis, compensating victims to the extend that the defendant proximately caused the victim's losses.

(Filing Date: 04-23-2014)

White v. Woodall

Sentencing: For a federal court to grant habeas corpus relief to a defendant, the previous state court's decision must involve an objectively unreasonable application of established federal law.

(Filing Date: 04-23-2014)

Navarette v. California

Criminal Procedure: An anonymous call can provide officers with reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop of a person driving under the influence when the caller has a sufficient eyewitness basis of knowledge.

(Filing Date: 04-22-2014)

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigration Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)

Constitutional Law: Michigan's constitutional amendment banning discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting is upheld.

(Filing Date: 04-22-2014)

McCutcheon et al v. Federal Election Commission

Election Law: The aggregate limit provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971(as amended by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002) that put limits on how much total money a contributor can donate to all federal candidates violates First Amendment protection for political expression and political association.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg

Preemption: The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempts state common law provisions that expand the scope of the contract rights between airlines and air passengers.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2014)

United States v. James Alvin Castleman

Criminal Law: A conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to a parent of his/her child qualifies as a conviction for a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."

(Filing Date: 03-26-2014)

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

Standing: In order to invoke a cause of action under the Lanham Act for false advertising, a plaintiff must plead an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation that is proximately caused by defendant’s misrepresentations.

(Filing Date: 03-25-2014)

United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., Et. al.

Tax Law: Severance payments are taxable wages under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act.

(Filing Date: 03-25-2014)

Marvin M. Brandt Revocable Trust v United States

Property Law: The right of way granted under the Right-of-Way Act of 1875 is an easement and thus, when abandoned by the Railroad, the easement is terminated.

(Filing Date: 03-10-2014)

BG Group plc v. Argentina

Arbitration: When a United States court reviews an arbitration award under the Treaty, the provisions of the arbitration and award should be examined under the principles of contract law.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez

Family Law: Equitable tolling is unavailable under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction even when the child's whereabouts is concealed.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

Rosemond v. United States

Criminal Law: A defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting under §924(c) when the defendant actively participates in the commission of a crime, and when the defendant has advance knowledge that a gun will be used in a crime.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2014)

Lawson v. FMR LLC

Employment Law: The whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act shelters employees of private contractors and subcontractors.

(Filing Date: 03-04-2014)

Law v. Siegel

Bankruptcy Law: Bankruptcy courts may only disallow statutory exemptions if permitted by statute, and lack any statutory or inherent power to directly or indirectly disallow exemptions by contradicting specific statutes.

(Filing Date: 03-04-2014)

Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice

Civil Procedure: The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 does not preclude the Respondents' state-law class actions alleging that the Petitioners assisted in carrying out a Ponzi scheme by alleging that the uncovered securities that plaintiffs purchased were protected by covered securities.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

United States v. Apel

Property Law: For 18 U.S.C. § 1382 purposes, a military installation includes the commanding officer's area of responsibility.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2014)

Fernandez v. California

Criminal Procedure: An objecting occupant does not have the Fourth Amendment right to suspend all searches of a residence when another occupant consents to the search. The objecting occupant must be at the residence to assert their Fourth Amendment right.

(Filing Date: 02-25-2014)

Kaley v. United States

Criminal Procedure: A criminal defendant who is indicted does not have the constitutional right to challenge a grand jury's finding of probable cause.

(Filing Date: 02-25-2014)

Walden v. Fiore

Civil Procedure: The drafting of a false affidavit of probable cause in Georgia which concerned property owned by Nevada residents was insufficient to establish the "minimum contacts" necessary for a Nevada court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a Georgia defendant.

(Filing Date: 02-25-2014)

Burrage v. United States

Sentencing: A drug distributed by a defendant must be the "but-for" cause of death or serious injury before that defendant can be liable under the Controlled Substances Act’s penalty enhancement provision.

(Filing Date: 01-27-2014)

Sandifer v United States Steel Corporation

Labor Law: The time spent putting on protective gear before work qualifies as "changing clothes" under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

(Filing Date: 01-27-2014)

Medtronic, Inc. v. Merowski Family Ventures, LLC

Civil Procedure: The burden of persuasion in a declaratory judgment action stemming from a patent infringement suit is on the patentee.

(Filing Date: 01-22-2014)

United States v. Wurie

Constitutional Law: Whether the Fourth Amendment permits the warrantless search of an arrestee's cell phone.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2014)

Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers

Attorney Fees: A judgment on the merits is final even if the amount or award of attorneys' fees is still pending.

(Filing Date: 01-15-2014)

Daimler AG v. Bauman

Civil Procedure: Petitioner is not answerable to a suit in California for injuries which occurred outside of the United States.

(Filing Date: 01-14-2014)

Mississippi ex rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp.

Civil Procedure: A suit filed by a State on behalf of the State and their citizens where the State is the only named party in the suit does not constitute a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

(Filing Date: 01-14-2014)

Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Employment Law: Participants in an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA may contract to a specific limitation period so long as the period is reasonable and no contrary controlling statute exists.

(Filing Date: 12-16-2013)

Kansas v. Cheever

Criminal Procedure: The rule in Buchanan v. Kentucky that the state does not violate a defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination when it offers psychological expert testimony derived from the defendant’s statements during a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation for the limited purpose of rebutting a defendant’s “mental status” defense.

(Filing Date: 12-11-2013)

Sprint Communications Inc. v. Jacobs

Civil Procedure: Abstention in civil cases invoking Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 in federal courts extends only to the three “exceptional circumstances” determined in New Orleans Public Services Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350.

(Filing Date: 12-10-2013)

Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

Civil Procedure: When there is a valid forum selection clause, a district court should alter its analysis of a 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) motion to consider if the party defying the forum selection clause can show extraordinary circumstances unrelated to convenience; the court should not consider the parties private interest; and the transfer of venue will not carry the original venue’s choice-of-law.

(Filing Date: 12-03-2013)

United States v. Woods

Tax Law: The District Court had jurisdiction to decide whether a partnerships' lack of economic substance justified a valuation-misstatement penalty on the partners.

(Filing Date: 12-03-2013)

Burt v. Titlow

Constitutional Law: "The Sixth Circuit failed to apply the "double differential" standard of review recognized by the Court's case law when it refused to credit the state court's reasonable factual finding and assumed that counsel was ineffective where the record was silent."

(Filing Date: 11-05-2013)

Stanton v. Sims

Criminal Procedure: A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity, even if a search of a home is unconstitutional, when in pursuit of a fleeing suspect; irrespective of whether the offense is a misdemeanor or felony.

(Filing Date: 11-04-2013)

Hollingsworth v. Perry

Standing: Official proponents of a ballot measure do not have a “personal stake” in the enforcement of the measure after the measure has been passed and enacted into law. Also, official proponents of ballot measures do not have a particularized interest sufficient to cause a case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2013)

Sekhar v. United States

Property Law: Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute “the obtaining of property from another” under the Hobbs Act.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2013)

United States v. Windsor

Constitutional Law: Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutionally violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 06-26-2013)

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Indian Law: Under the the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), neither §1912(f) nor §1912(d) bars the termination of parental rights.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2013)

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District

Property Law: The Fifth Amendment requires that the government follow the Nollan/Dolan requirement when demanding property from a land-use permit applicant even when the permit is denied.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2013)

Shelby County v. Holder

Constitutional Law: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq., is unconstitutional and its formula can no longer be used for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2013)

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Constitutional Law: The Fifth Circuit erred by not applying strict scrutiny as articulated in Grutter and Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265.

(Filing Date: 06-24-2013)

Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett

Preemption: State-law design-defect claims that turn on the adequacy of a drug’s warnings are pre-empted by federal law.

(Filing Date: 06-24-2013)

Ryan v. Schad

Appellate Procedure: Staying the issuance of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate based on its reconsidering a motion it had already denied, conflicts with Bell v. Thompson. The Ninth Circuit erred by applying Martinez rather than Pinholster.

(Filing Date: 06-24-2013)

United States v. Kebodeaux

Constitutional Law: The Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to enact the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA).

(Filing Date: 06-24-2013)

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v Nassar

Employment Law: Title VII retaliation claims must be proved according to traditional principles of but-for causation.

(Filing Date: 06-24-2013)

Vance v. Ball State University

Employment Law: Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a “supervisor” is a person that has the power to take “tangible employment action” against the harassment victim.

(Filing Date: 06-24-2013)

Agency for Int’l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc.

First Amendment: The First Amendment does not allow for a policy that compels affirmation of a belief to be a condition for federal funding.

(Filing Date: 06-20-2013)

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant

Arbitration: A contractual waiver of class arbitration is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act when the cost of individual arbitration of federal claim exceeds the potential recovery.

(Filing Date: 06-20-2013)

Descamps v. United States

Sentencing: A court may not use the modified categorical approach when considering a defendant's conviction under an indivisible statue that is broader than the generic offense.

(Filing Date: 06-20-2013)

Alleyne v United States

Criminal Law: "Elemental" facts must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury and any fact that raises the prescribed sentencing is "elemental".

(Filing Date: 06-17-2013)

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Ariz.

Preemption: "Evidence-of-citizenship requirements, as applied to federal applicants, is preempted by the National Voter Registration Act’s mandate that States “accept and use” the Federal Form."

(Filing Date: 06-17-2013)

Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc., Et. Al.

Patents: Reverse payment agreements, while not per se illegal, are subject to a "rule of reason" in determining their anti-competitive effect in an anti-trust action.

(Filing Date: 06-17-2013)

Maracich v. Spears

Civil Law: "An attorney’s solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose covered by the Driver's Privacy Protection Act 18 U. S. C. § 2721 (b)(4) litigation exception."

(Filing Date: 06-17-2013)

Salinas v. Texas

Criminal Procedure: Noncustodial witnesses must verbally assert their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination for it to have effect. Silence from a noncustodial witness does not imply that the witness asserts their privilege against self-incrimination even when the witness's silence is in reliance of their privilege against self-incrimination.

(Filing Date: 06-17-2013)

American Trucking Association, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

Preemption: The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA) preempts state or local government regulations requiring a placard with a driving safety contact phone number and an off-street parking plan for trucks not in service.

(Filing Date: 06-13-2013)

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.

Patents: A naturally occurring segment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is not patent eligible under 35 U. S. C. §101. However, Non-natural occurring segments are patent eligible.

(Filing Date: 06-13-2013)

Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann

Water Rights: In the absence of express language creating cross-border rights to water located entirely within one state, the Red River compact does not preempt Oklahoma state water statutes from discriminating against out of state takers. The dormant Commerce Clause is not violated by Oklahoma's water statutes even though they have a discriminatory effect on the interstate commerce of water.

(Filing Date: 06-13-2013)

United States v. Davila

Criminal Procedure: A plea cannot be vacated for an error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(h) unless the the error results in prejudice to the defendant's decision to plead guilty.

(Filing Date: 06-13-2013)

Horne v. Department of Agriculture

Constitutional Law: A fine for a violation of an agricultural marketing order must not be paid prior to filing a “takings” claim.

(Filing Date: 06-10-2013)

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter

Arbitration: So long as an arbitrator makes a good faith attempt to interpret a contract, the arbitrator’s determination survives judicial review.

(Filing Date: 06-10-2013)

Peugh v United States

Sentencing: A change in the sentencing guidelines after the date of the crime, which are then used to sentence an individual, is a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause.

(Filing Date: 06-10-2013)

Hillman v. Maretta

Preemption: "The Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA), which establishes a life insurance program for federal employees, allows an employee to designate a beneficiary to receive the proceeds of the policy when the employee dies. FEGLIA preempts a Virginia law which provides that, when a married couple is divorced, the divorced spouses are no longer the beneficiaries of each other’s life insurance policies."

(Filing Date: 06-03-2013)

Maryland v. King

Criminal Procedure: A DNA cheek swab may be taken from a suspect of a serious crime whose arrest is supported by probable cause. The taking and analyzing of a DNA cheek swab is a legitimate police booking procedure that is considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 06-03-2013)

Nevada v. Jackson

Evidence: The exclusion of extrinsic evidence relating to prior acts of a witness is not a violation of the constitutional right to present a complete defense.

(Filing Date: 06-03-2013)

McQuiggin v. Perkins

Criminal Procedure: A federal habeas petition can overcome the time limits set forth in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 if actual innocence is proven.

(Filing Date: 05-28-2013)

Trevino v. Thaler

Habeas Corpus: The "good cause" exception recognized in Martinez v. Ryan applies if a state's procedural framework limits any meaningful opportunity to raise a claim on direct appeal that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

(Filing Date: 05-28-2013)

City of Arlington v. FCC

Administrative Law: Courts must apply the Chevron framework to an agency interpretation of a statutory ambiguity that concerns the scope of the agency’s statutory authority.

(Filing Date: 05-20-2013)

Metrish v. Lancaster

Constitutional Law: Federal habeas relief will only be granted if a state court, in rejecting a due process claim, unreasonably applied a clearly established Federal law.

(Filing Date: 05-20-2013)

PPL Corp. v. Commissioner

Tax Law: "The United Kingdom 'windfall tax' is creditable under IRS code §901."

(Filing Date: 05-20-2013)

Sebelius v. Cloer

Attorney Fees: A claim under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), even if untimely, may qualify for an award of attorney’s fees so long as there is good faith and a reasonable basis for the claim.

(Filing Date: 05-20-2013)

Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

Patents: The Patent Exhaustion Doctrine does not apply when the buyer reproduces the patented product. This includes "self-replicating products" where the item's intended use will create copies that have "non-replicating" uses.

(Filing Date: 05-13-2013)

Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A.

Bankruptcy Law: Under Bankruptcy Code 11 U.S.C §523(a)(4) the term “defalcation” includes a mental culpability requirement of knowingly or gross recklessness in regard to improper fiduciary behavior.

(Filing Date: 05-13-2013)

Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey

Preemption: The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 does not preempt state-law claims arising from the storage and disposal of towed vehicles.

(Filing Date: 05-13-2013)

McBurney v. Young

Constitutional Law: Virginia's Freedom of Information Act does not violate the Privileges and Immunity Clause or the dormant Commerce Clause by granting Virginia citizens access to public records, but grants no such right to non-Virginians.

(Filing Date: 04-29-2013)

Moncrieffe v. Holder

Immigration: A charge of aggravated, felonious distribution of marijuana cannot be leveled against a non-citizen when there is a failure to establish remuneration or if the amount of marijuana is small.

(Filing Date: 04-23-2013)

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum

Civil Law: The presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), which precludes civil claims for torts arising outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

Missouri v. McNeely

Criminal Procedure: In the context of alcohol-related driving investigations, the Fourth Amendment requires officers to obtain consent or a warrant before proceeding with a blood alcohol content test unless truly exigent circumstances exist.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2013)

Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symcyzk

Civil Procedure: A collective action to recover damages is not justiciable if the sole plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2013)

U.S. Airways, Inc. v. McCutchen

Employment Law: The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not authorize courts to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language.

(Filing Date: 04-16-2013)

Marshall v. Rodgers

Constitutional Law: The “conclusion of the California courts that there was no Sixth Amendment violation is not contrary to 'clearly established Federal law', as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States," 28 U.S.C. §2254(d).

(Filing Date: 04-01-2013)

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

Civil Procedure: Before a court may certify a class, a party must demonstrate damages on a classwide basis to satisfy the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

(Filing Date: 03-27-2013)

Millbrook v. United States

Tort Law: Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) the law enforcement proviso in 28 U.S.C. §2680(h) for intentional torts extends to officers’ acts or omissions arising within the scope of their duty and is not limited to conduct during an arrest, search, or seizure.

(Filing Date: 03-27-2013)

Florida v. Jardines

Criminal Procedure: The “use of trained police dogs to investigate [a] home and its immediate surroundings is a ‘search’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”

(Filing Date: 03-26-2013)

Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center & Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Environmental Law: The EPA should be afforded deference in its interpretation of the Industrial Stormwater Rule (40 CFR §122.26(b)(14)), that stormwater discharges channeled through man-made ditches are “natural runoff” and the ditches are not “point sources” of pollution that require National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2013)

Wos v. E.M.A.

Preemption: North Carolina’s statute requiring that up to one-third of any damages recovered by a Medicaid beneficiary for a tortious injury be paid to the State to reimburse it for payments it made for medical treatment on account of the injury is conflict-preempted by 42 U.S.C §1396p(a)(1) which prohibits States from attaching a lien on the property of a Medicaid beneficiary to recover benefits paid by the State on the beneficiary’s behalf.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2013)

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Copyright: The Copyright Act's "first sale" doctrine permits resale of foreign works legally manufactured and legitimately acquired abroad and imported to the United States without requiring the copyright holder's permission.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2013)

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles

Civil Procedure: Federal court jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 is not determined based on a stipulation made prior to class-action certification that the plaintiffs will not seek damages above the statutory threshold because the stipulation is not binding on nonparty members.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2013)

Levin v. United States

Tort Law: The Gonzalez Act abrogates the Federal Tort Claim Act's sovereign immunity exception for intentional tort claims against medical doctors, therefore intentional tort claims against armed forces medical personnel acting within the scope of their employment are permissible.

(Filing Date: 03-04-2013)

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds

Civil Procedure: Securities fraud plaintiffs who seek to certify a class action need not actually prove material misrepresentation to meet the predominance requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) at the class certification stage, but need only show the predominance of a common question of material misrepresentation invoked by the fraud-on-the-market rebuttable presumption.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2013)

Gabelli v. SEC

Securities Law: In a securities action brought by the SEC, the statute of limitations begins to run on the date the allegedly fraudulent action occurred not the date it was discovered.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2013)

Marx v. General Revenue Corp.

Civil Procedure: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1)—which allows a court to award costs to a prevailing party "[u]nless a federal statute . . . provides otherwise"—is not displaced by the “bad faith” provision of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the provision is not "contrary" to the Rule.

(Filing Date: 02-26-2013)

Chaidez v. United States

Post-Conviction Relief: A defendant cannot benefit from a new rule when her conviction became final prior to the new rule’s enactment.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2013)

Evans v. Michigan

Constitutional Law: The Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial after an acquittal regardless of whether the acquittal was erroneous.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2013)

Gunn v. Minton

Civil Procedure: "[S]tate legal malpractice claims based on underlying patent matters will rarely, if ever, arise under federal patent law for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1338(a)."

(Filing Date: 02-20-2013)

Henderson v. United States

Criminal Procedure: A trial court's decision is "plain error" under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) if the error is plain at the time of appellate review, even when the law was unsettled at the time of error.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2013)

Johnson v. Williams

Habeas Corpus: When a state court addresses some of the claims raised on appeal but does not expressly address a federal claim that is later raised in habeas proceedings, there is a rebuttable presumption that the state court decided the federal claim on its merits.

(Filing Date: 02-20-2013)

Bailey v. United States

Criminal Procedure: The rule in Michigan v. Summers, 452 U. S. 692, which permits officers executing a search warrant to “detain the occupants of the premises while a proper search is conducted” is limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched.

(Filing Date: 02-19-2013)

Chafin v. Chafin

Constitutional Law: The return of a child to a foreign country under an International Convention return order does not render an appeal of that order moot.

(Filing Date: 02-19-2013)

Florida v. Harris

Criminal Procedure: A court should find probable cause for a search based on a narcotics detection dog’s alert when the State produces proof that the dog is reliable at detecting drugs in a controlled setting and the defendant fails to contest that showing.

(Filing Date: 02-19-2013)

FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.

Antitrust: Since Georgia has not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed a policy in which hospital authorities can substantially lessen competition by acquiring additional hospitals, state-action immunity does not apply to the hospital authorities.

(Filing Date: 02-19-2013)

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

First Amendment: Whether the aggregate individual political contribution limit imposed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 is an unconstitutional burden on would-be contributors’ First Amendment rights.

(Filing Date: 02-19-2013)

Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center

Administrative Law: Because the 180-day period within which a healthcare provider must appeal a fiscal intermediary’s initial decision on the amount for which the provider is to be reimbursed for inpatient services rendered to Medicare beneficiaries under 42 U. S. C. §1395oo(a)(3) is not “jurisdictional” it was permissible for the Secretary of Health and Human Services to allow a regulation extending the time for a provider’s appeal to three years and the presumption in favor of equitable tolling is not applicable.

(Filing Date: 01-22-2013)

Lozman v. Riviera Beach

Admiralty: The test for whether a floating structure is a vessel is “[whether] a reasonable observer, looking to the home’s physical characteristics and activities, would consider it designed to a practical degree for carrying people or things over water.”

(Filing Date: 01-15-2013)

Already, LLC v Nike, Inc.

Standing: Broad language to "unconditionally and irrevocably" prohibit suit, claim or demand meets the burden of the voluntary cessation test and therefore ends any actual case or controversy necessary for Article III standing.

(Filing Date: 01-09-2013)

Smith v. United States

Criminal Law: A defendant—not the government—has the burden of proving withdrawal from a conspiracy.

(Filing Date: 01-09-2013)

Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Environmental Law: The flow of polluted river water through concrete channels and back into the same river does not constitute a "discharge of pollutants" under the Clean Water Act.

(Filing Date: 01-08-2013)

Ryan v. Gonzales & Tibbals v. Carter v. Solis

Habeas Corpus: State prisoners have no right to a stay of their record-based habeas proceedings when they are adjudged incompetent.

(Filing Date: 01-08-2013)

Kloeckner v. Solis

Employment Law: A federal employee seeking judicial review of a decision by the Merit Systems Protection Board in a case alleging that an adverse agency action violated a federal antidiscrimination statute should appeal to the district court and not to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit regardless of whether the MSPB decided the case on the merits.

(Filing Date: 12-10-2012)

Arkansas Game and Fish Comm'n v. United States

Constitutional Law: Government action that causes a temporary physical invasion may constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 12-04-2012)

Nitro-Lift Technologies v. Howard

Arbitration: When parties enter into a mandatory arbitration contract, any claim attacking the validity of the contract's terms must be decided by the arbitrator in the first instance and any state statute providing otherwise is "displaced by the [Federal Arbitration Act]."

(Filing Date: 11-26-2012)

United States v. Bormes

Sovereign Immunity: When a statute contains a self-executing remedial scheme, courts are to look only to the text of the statute to determine whether Congress intended to waive the government’s sovereign immunity.

(Filing Date: 11-13-2012)

Lefemine v. Wideman

Remedies: A plaintiff who is awarded an injunction without monetary damages is still entitled to attorney fees under 42 USC §1988 because an injunction is a form of actual relief that “materially alters the legal relationship between the parties by modifying the defendant’s behavior in a way that directly benefits the plaintiff.”

(Filing Date: 11-05-2012)

Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission

Constitutional Law: A state redistricting plan that demonstrates valid, neutral policies necessary to achieve legitimate state objectives is consistent with constitutional norms even if it requires small differences in the population of congressional districts.

(Filing Date: 09-25-2012)

First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

Standing: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

(Filing Date: 06-28-2012)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Constitutional Law: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power, but the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution's Spending Clause.

(Filing Date: 06-28-2012)

United States v. Alvarez

First Amendment: The Stolen Valor Act, which prohibits falsely claiming to have received a military award, violates the First Amendment because falsity alone is insufficient to bring speech outside of its protection.

(Filing Date: 06-28-2012)

American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock

Constitutional Law: A state ban on independent political expenditures from corporate general treasuries unduly burdens First Amendment rights.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2012)

Arizona v. United States

Preemption: The provision of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law requiring police officers to make a “reasonable attempt . . . to determine the immigration status” of persons stopped, detained or arrested when they have reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien “unlawfully present in the United States” is constitutional, but the other three provisions of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2012)

Miller v. Alabama

Criminal Law: A mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

(Filing Date: 06-25-2012)

Dorsey v. United States

Sentencing: The Fair Sentencing Act applies to all offenders who are sentenced after 2010 regardless of when the crime was committed.

(Filing Date: 06-21-2012)

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Constitutional Law: The FCC violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment when it applied sanctions to broadcasters without providing them with fair notice of the Commission's policy shift regarding indecency.

(Filing Date: 06-21-2012)

Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000

First Amendment: When a public union wishes to raise money via a special assessment or mid-year increase in dues, it is required to issue notice to its constituents and is forbidden from taking funds from non-consenting nonmembers.

(Filing Date: 06-21-2012)

Southern Union Co. v. U.S.

Sentencing: When a criminal fine is sufficient to trigger the Sixth Amendment jury-trial guarantee, facts that would increase the penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

(Filing Date: 06-21-2012)

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

Employment Law: Pharmaceutical sales representatives are "outside salesmen" under the most reasonable interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and are thus exempt from overtime compensation.

(Filing Date: 06-18-2012)

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak & Salazar v. Patchak

Standing: The United States waived sovereign immunity under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it took land in trust for tribal use, and the Quiet Title Act (QTA) does not provide an exception for a suit that does not seek title of the land. Further, because the Indian Reorganization Act addresses land use, Respondent’s claims are entitled to prudential standing because they are within the Act’s “zone of interest.”

(Filing Date: 06-18-2012)

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter

Tribal Law: Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq.) the government is required to pay each tribal contract support costs in full.

(Filing Date: 06-18-2012)

Williams v. Illinois

Evidence: A laboratory report that was not prepared for the purpose of incriminating a targeted suspect is non-testimonial within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause.

(Filing Date: 06-18-2012)

Elgin v. Department of the Treasury

Civil Procedure: The Civil Service Reform Act precludes district court jurisdiction over challenges to adverse employment action under the Military Selective Service Act, even when such action is challenged on constitutional grounds.

(Filing Date: 06-11-2012)

Parker v. Matthews

Habeas Corpus: The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit improperly set aside a murder conviction in a clear example of "using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts" as proscribed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA).

(Filing Date: 06-11-2012)

Armour v. Indianapolis

Constitutional Law: The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit a city from distinguishing between landowners who have paid their assessments and landowners who have not when changing assessment systems for improvement projects.

(Filing Date: 06-04-2012)

Reichle v. Howards

Civil Rights § 1983: Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages liability “unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

(Filing Date: 06-04-2012)

Coleman v. Johnson

Post-Conviction Relief: In reviewing a criminal conviction, a reviewing court may only set aside a jury verdict due to insufficient evidence “if no rational trier of fact could have agreed with the verdict." It is the jury’s responsibility to draw inferences and conclusions from the evidence offered at trial and deference must be given.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2012)

Radlax Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank

Bankruptcy Law: A debtor may not obtain confirmation of a Chapter 11 cramdown plan to sell an encumbered asset clear of liens under §1129(b)(2)(A) and prohibit creditors to credit-bid.

(Filing Date: 05-29-2012)

Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

Property Law: A violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b) of RESPA only occurs when unearned fees for settlement services are split among multiple parties.

(Filing Date: 05-25-2012)

Blueford v. Arkansas

Criminal Procedure: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a second trial on all charges where the first trial ended in a mistrial, even where the jury reported during the course of its deliberations that it was unanimous against guilt on some of the original charges.

(Filing Date: 05-24-2012)

Astrue v. Capato

Administrative Law: Posthumously conceived biological children are entitled to Social Security survivor’s benefits only if they could inherit from the deceased under state intestacy law or meet another statutory alternative.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2012)

Holder v. Gutierrez

Administrative Law: The Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to reject imputation of parental residency is reasonable and entitled to Chevron deference because it is “based on a permissible construction” of the statute.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2012)

Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd.

Civil Procedure: The Court Interpreters Act provides for compensation for oral translation but not document translation.

(Filing Date: 05-21-2012)

Hall v. United States

Bankruptcy Law: Under 11 U.S.C. § 1222(a)(2)(A), federal income tax liability resulting from individual debtors' sale of their farm during the course of a Chapter 12 bankruptcy is not "incurred by the estate" and thus not dischargeable.

(Filing Date: 05-14-2012)

United States v Home Concrete & Supply LLC.

Administrative Law: 26 U.S.C. §6501(e)(1))(A), which extends the period for detecting mistakes in tax returns from 3 years to 6 years only applies to complete omissions. It does not apply to basic understatements which lead to a smaller taxable gross income.

(Filing Date: 04-25-2012)

Wood v. Milyard

Habeas Corpus: Courts of appeals have authority to raise a forfeited timeliness defense sua sponte in exceptional cases, but the court of appeals abused its discretion when it dismissed petitioner’s habeas petition as untimely because the state had deliberately waived the statute of limitations defense.

(Filing Date: 04-24-2012)

Kappos v. Hyatt

Patents: A patent applicant’s ability to introduce new evidence in a civil 35 U.S.C. § 145 claim is limited only by the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). The district court is to review new evidence concerning a disputed question of fact de novo taking into account the administrative record of the Patent and Trade Office (PTO) as well as the new evidence.

(Filing Date: 04-18-2012)

Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority

Tort Law: The Tortured Victims Protection Act's authorization of a suit against an "individual" only extends liability to natural persons and not to non-sovereign organizations.

(Filing Date: 04-18-2012)

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S

Administrative Law: The Hatch-Waxman Act's counterclaim provision allows generic drug manufacturers to seek an FDA order requiring changes by the patent holder both to approved uses of the drug and to corrections of the patent's scope.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2012)

Filarsky v. Delia

Civil Rights § 1983: A private individual temporarily retained by the government is entitled to seek qualified immunity from a §1983 suit.

(Filing Date: 04-17-2012)

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington

Criminal Procedure: The elimination of contraband in correctional facilities requires reasonable search procedures, and courts should defer to prison officials as to the reasonableness of these procedures.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2012)

Rehberg v. Paulk

Criminal Procedure: A grand jury witness is entitled to the same absolute immunity from a § 1983 suit as a trial witness.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2012)

Vasquez v. United States

Evidence: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.

(Filing Date: 04-02-2012)

Armour v. Indianapolis

Constitutional Law: Whether the City of Indianapolis violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by forgiving tax assessments to property owners who were paying in installments, while not offering refunds to property owners who paid in full.

(Filing Date: 03-29-2012)

FAA v. Cooper

Tort Law: The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §552a(g)(4)(A), does not abrogate sovereign immunity for damages arising from emotional and mental distress.

(Filing Date: 03-28-2012)

Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services

Constitutional Law: (1) Whether Congress may make federal Medicaid funding contingent upon States providing expanded health care in order to coerce States into accepting conditions that Congress would be otherwise unable to impose directly; and (2) Whether the individual mandate that requires Americans to purchase health insurance, if deemed unconstitutional, may be severed from the rest of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

(Filing Date: 03-28-2012)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Constitutional Law: Whether the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must be invalidated because its mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance is non-severable from the remainder of the Act.

(Filing Date: 03-28-2012)

Setser v. United States

Sentencing: Federal district courts have discretion to order a federal sentence to run consecutively with a state sentence that has yet to be imposed.

(Filing Date: 03-28-2012)

Vartelas v. Holder

Immigration: Application of IIRIRA § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) to convictions entered prior to the passage of IIRIRA imposes a new disability in respect to past events and violates the presumption against the retroactive application of laws in the absence of clear Congressional intent. Additionally, the immigration law in place at the time of conviction is the law that governs the impact of that conviction.

(Filing Date: 03-28-2012)

Credite Suisse Securities v. Simmonds

Civil Procedure: Because the usual rules of equitable tolling apply to §16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the 2-year limitation for actions to recover for profit due to unfair use of information starts from the date the profit was realized and is not tolled until the filing of a §16(a) statement.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2012)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida

Constitutional Law: (1) Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is beyond Congress’ powers under Article I because it includes a mandate that individuals must obtain health insurance or pay a monetary fine; and (2) Whether the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a), bars suits by challengers to the Act.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2012)

Zivotofsky v. Clinton

Constitutional Law: The district court's determination of whether a Jerusalem-born US citizen may choose to have Israel listed as his place of birth on his passport is not barred by political question doctrine.

(Filing Date: 03-26-2012)

Lafler v. Cooper

Post-Conviction Relief: The Sixth Amendment's protections extend to plea bargains, and a full and fair trial does not remedy a pretrial violation, even where the trial itself was not prejudiced by the error.

(Filing Date: 03-21-2012)

Missouri v. Frye

Post-Conviction Relief: The right to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment extends to the consideration of plea offers that lapse because counsel did not inform the defendant of the plea.

(Filing Date: 03-21-2012)

Reichle v. Howards

Criminal Procedure: (1): Whether the existence of probable cause to make an arrest bars a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim; and (2): Whether Secret Service agents should receive qualified and absolute immunity when making split second decisions while protecting the Vice President or the President.

(Filing Date: 03-21-2012)

Sackett v. EPA

Administrative Law: An individual may file suit under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge a compliance order issued by the EPA under the Clean Water Act because the compliance order is a final agency action and the Clean Water Act does not preclude judicial review.

(Filing Date: 03-21-2012)

Vasquez v. United States

Evidence: Whether the Court of Appeals applied the correct standard for harmless error review, and whether the standard applied by the Seventh Circuit violated Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

(Filing Date: 03-21-2012)

Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland et al.

Constitutional Law: Congress' abrogation of state sovereign immunity in FMLA’s “self-care” provision is unconstitutional because it lacks congruence and proportionality to the harm it seeks to remedy.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2012)

Martinez v. Ryan

Habeas Corpus: A federal habeas court may excuse a procedural default of an ineffective-assistance of counsel claim when the claim was not properly presented in state court due to an attorney’s errors in an initial-review collateral proceeding.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2012)

Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc

Patents: One must do more than simply describe a multi-step application of an unpatentable law of nature to transform it into a patent-eligible application of such a law.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2012)

Miller v. Alabama

Criminal Law: Whether a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole violates the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments when the defendant was fourteen years old at the time of the crime.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2012)

Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc.

Workers Compensation: Under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act, an injured employee's compensation benefits are determined by the date of injury and not the date an award is issued.

(Filing Date: 03-20-2012)

Southern Union Co. v. U.S.

Sentencing: Whether the Apprendi requirement that any facts which increase criminal penalties beyond the prescribed statutory maximum are to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and submitted to a jury applies to criminal fines.

(Filing Date: 03-19-2012)

Astrue v. Capato

Administrative Law: Whether a child conceived after a biological parent's death is eligible for Social Security survivor benefits.

(Filing Date: 03-18-2012)

Jackson v. Hobbs

Criminal Law: Whether sentencing a fourteen-year-old convicted of aggravated murder to life imprisonment without possibility of parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 03-18-2012)

Martel v. Clair

Habeas Corpus: Motions to replace counsel in capital habeas petitions are to be judged by the same "interest of justice" standard as non-capital cases.

(Filing Date: 03-05-2012)

Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp.

Preemption: (The Locomotive Inspection Act, 49 U.S.C. § 20701 et seq., preempts defective design and failure to warn state law tort claims.)

(Filing Date: 02-29-2012)

Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority

Tort Law: Whether the Torture Victim Protection Act includes corporations or organizations as possible defendants.

(Filing Date: 02-28-2012)

Elgin v. Department of the Treasury

Employment Law: Whether the Civil Service Reform Act ("CSRA") prevents federal district courts from having jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to employment dismissals under the Military Selective Services Act ("MSSA").

(Filing Date: 02-27-2012)

Wood v. Milyard

Habeas Corpus: (1) Whether an appellate court has the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) statute of limitations defense; and (2) whether the state’s declaration before the district court that it “will not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of [petitioner’s] habeas petition,” amounts to a waiver of any statute of limitations defense.

(Filing Date: 02-27-2012)

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA

Standing: Neither the possibility of future injury nor the choice to spend money to minimize the possibility of future injury is sufficient to “satisfy the well-established requirement that threatened injury must be ‘certainly impending.’”

(Filing Date: 02-26-2012)

Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc.

Constitutional Law: The original issue of whether Medicaid providers and recipients may maintain a Supremacy Clause action is not longer applicable because the federal administration in charge of administering Medicaid decided that the state statutes were consistent with federal law.

(Filing Date: 02-22-2012)

Messerschmidt v. Millender

Criminal Procedure: Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit when they have a reasonable belief that the scope of a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate was supported by probable cause.

(Filing Date: 02-22-2012)

Messerschmidt v. Millender

Criminal Procedure: Police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit when they have a reasonable belief that the scope of a warrant issued by a neutral magistrate was supported by probable cause.

(Filing Date: 02-22-2012)

PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana

Constitutional Law: A state does not acquire title to segments of rivers under the Equal Footing Doctrine when those segments of river were nonnavigable under federal law at the time of statehood.

(Filing Date: 02-22-2012)

United States v. Alvarez

Constitutional Law: (Whether the Stolen Valor Act is facially invalid under the First Amendment's Free Speech clause.)

(Filing Date: 02-22-2012)

Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

Consumer Credit: (Whether § 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) prohibits a real estate settlement services provider from charging an unearned fee only if the fee is divided between two or more parties).

(Filing Date: 02-21-2012)

Howes v. Fields

Criminal Procedure: Police were not required to issue Miranda warnings when interrogating a prisoner for an unrelated offense when the totality of the circumstances suggest that the prisoner was not in an inherently coercive situation

(Filing Date: 02-21-2012)

Kawashima v. Holder

Immigration: Convictions for making or assisting in the making of a false tax return constitute aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) when the loss to the government exceeds $10,000 and therefore subject petitioners to deportation under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

(Filing Date: 02-21-2012)

Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown

Contract Law: West Virginia's prohibition of pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes is contrary to the terms and coverage of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).

(Filing Date: 02-21-2012)

Wetzel v. Lambert

Habeas Corpus: The Third Circuit failed to assess the state court’s determinations for reasonableness under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

(Filing Date: 02-21-2012)

PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana

Constitutional Law: A state does not acquire title to segments of rivers under the Equal Footing Doctrine when those segments of river were nonnavigable under federal law at the time of statehood.

(Filing Date: 02-02-2012)

Knox v. Service Employees Int'l Union, Local 1000

Labor Law: (1) Whether a union must provide nonunion public employees with adequate notice and an opportunity to object when the union imposes an emergency assessment intended solely for political and ideological expenditures. (2) Whether a state violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments when it conditions public employment on the payment of union fees used to fund the union’s political activities.

(Filing Date: 01-31-2012)

Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris

Preemption: The Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) expressly preempts California's amended penal code application against federally inspected swine slaughterhouses.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2012)

Reynolds v. United States

Criminal Procedure: The Sex Offender Registration Act does not require offenders convicted before the Act was passed to register until the Attorney General has validly specified that the registration provisions apply to them.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2012)

Ryburn v. Huff

Criminal Procedure: A police officer may enter an individual's residence without violating the 4th Amendment if a reasonable police officer in the same position could have had an objectively reasonable basis for fearing imminent violence.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2012)

United States v. Jones

Criminal Procedure: The Government conducted a 4th Amendment search when it physically occupied private property by installing a GPS device on a vehicle and used that device to monitor the vehicle's movements.

(Filing Date: 01-23-2012)

Perry v. Perez

Constitutional Law: When a District Court is required to construct an interim redistricting plan for a state's Congressional or legislative districts, it should defer to any policy decisions made by the state legislature to the extent that they do not conflict with the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act.

(Filing Date: 01-20-2012)

Golan v. Holder

First Amendment: The Copyright Clause and the First Amendment do not prohibit Congress from removing works that were previously placed in the public domain.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2012)

Holder v. Gutierrez consolidated with Holder v. Sawyers

Immigration: Whether the years that a person's parents are in the United States legally can be applied to the years required for that person to meet the seven year requirement of 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2) for cancellation of removal.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2012)

Maples v. Thomas

Criminal Procedure: Petitioner must show adequate "cause" to excuse a failure to timely file an appeal when the filing deadline lapses.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2012)

Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC

Civil Procedure: Federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over private suits arising under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

(Filing Date: 01-18-2012)

Vartelas v. Holder

Immigration: Whether INA § 101(a)(13)(C)(v) can be enforced against lawful permanent residents who, prior to the passage of IIRIRA in 1997, pleaded guilty to an offense identified in INA § 212(a)(2), 8 U.S.C section 1182(a)(2).

(Filing Date: 01-18-2012)

Filarsky v. Delia

Qualified Immunity: Whether a private attorney retained by local government to conduct an investigation is precluded from asserting qualified immunity solely because of his status as a private lawyer rather than a government employee.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2012)

U.S. v. Home Concrete & Supply

Tax Law: [1] Whether an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis in sold property is an "omi[ssion] from gross income" that can trigger the extended six-year assessment period; and [2] whether a final regulation promulgated by the Department of the Treasury, which reflects the IRS's view that an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis can trigger the extended six-year assessment period, is entitled to judicial deference.

(Filing Date: 01-17-2012)

Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals

Constitutional Law: Whether Congress constitutionally abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it passed the self-care leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

(Filing Date: 01-11-2012)

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

Constitutional Law: The "ministerial exception," which is rooted in the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, bars an employment suit brought on behalf of a minister, challenging her church's decision to fire her.

(Filing Date: 01-11-2012)

Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid

Administrative Law: To receive compensation under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, an employee need not have been injured while physically on the Outer Continental Shelf, but instead must establish a substantial nexus between his injury and his employer’s operations on the Outer Continental Shelf.

(Filing Date: 01-11-2012)

Perry v. New Hampshire

Evidence: The Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial assessment of the reliability of eyewitness identification unless the identification was procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement.

(Filing Date: 01-11-2012)

Roberts v. Sea-Land Services

Workers Compensation: (1) Whether the phrase “newly awarded compensation during such period” in the Longshore and Harbor Worker’s Compensation Act (“Act”) section 906(c) means, “those first entitled to compensation during such period,” regardless of when the compensation is awarded, and (2) whether the phrase “employees or survivors currently receiving compensation for permanent disability or death benefits during such period” in section 906(c) of the Act means those “entitled to such compensation during such period,” without reference to when the compensation was received).

(Filing Date: 01-11-2012)

CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood

Contract Law: The Credit Repair Organization Act [CROA] does not create a non-waivable right which prevents the enforcement of an arbitration clause for a lawsuit alleging violations of CROA.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2012)

Gonzalez v. Thaler

Habeas Corpus: A judge's failure to indicate a constitutional issue as required in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3) does not deprive the Court of Appeals of subject matter jurisdiction because §2253(c)(3) is not a jurisdictional requirement. Additionally for a state prisoner who does not seek review in the State's highest court, the judgment becomes "final" for the purpose of calculating the one-year limitation period of 28 U.S.C. §2244(d)(1)(A) on the date that the time for seeking such review expires.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2012)

Minneci v. Pollard

Constitutional Law: Where state tort law remedies provide sufficient deterrence and compensation, an Eighth Amendment Bivens action will not be implied against employees of a privately operated federal prison.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2012)

Smith v. Cain

Criminal Procedure: Failure to disclose material evidence violates Brady and may require reversal of conviction.

(Filing Date: 01-10-2012)

Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Administrative Law: Whether the Federal Communications Commission's current indecency-enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

(Filing Date: 01-09-2012)

Perry v. Perez, Perry v. Davis, Perry v. Perez

Election Law: Whether a district court may order the use of judicially drawn "interim" electoral maps while preclearance procedures, required by the Voting Rights Act, remaining pending.

(Filing Date: 01-09-2012)

Sackett v. EPA

Administrative Law: Whether the Clean Water Act permits judicial review of compliance orders issued by the Environmental Protection Agency prior to enforcement action, and if not, if review preclusion is a violation of the Due Process Clause.

(Filing Date: 01-09-2012)

Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter

Indian Law: Whether the government is required to pay contract support costs to a tribal contractor, where Congress has imposed an express statutory cap on the money available to pay these support costs and the amount of the tribal contract support costs exceed the cap.

(Filing Date: 01-06-2012)

Hardy v. Cross

Habeas Corpus: Certiorari granted and the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Cross v. Hardy is reversed.

(Filing Date: 12-12-2011)

Judulang v. Holder

Immigration: The BIA’s policy for applying §212(c) in deportation cases is “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act.

(Filing Date: 12-12-2011)

Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc

Patents: Whether the correlation between blood test results and patient health is patentable.

(Filing Date: 12-07-2011)

PPL Montana v. Montana

Constitutional Law: (Whether the constitutional test for determining if a river is navigable for title purposes requires an inquiry into whether the stretch in controversy was navigable at the time that the State joined the Union or whether the appropriate test is whether the river as a whole is navigable based on present day use)

(Filing Date: 12-07-2011)

Martel v. Clair

Habeas Corpus: Whether a condemned state prisoner in a federal habeas proceeding is entitled to replace his court appointed attorney with another court appointed attorney based on his dissatisfaction with the initial attorney's performance.

(Filing Date: 12-06-2011)

Williams v. Illinois

Evidence: Whether a state violates a criminal defendant's constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him when it allows an expert to testify about DNA reports prepared by analysts who do not appear at trial.

(Filing Date: 12-06-2011)

Caraco v. Novo Nordisk

Administrative Law: Whether the provision in the Hatch-Waxman Act allowing generic drug manufacturers to “counterclaim” and seek an FDA order requiring changes by the patent holder applies to (1) approved methods of use of the drug and (2) corrections to the patent’s scope.

(Filing Date: 12-05-2011)

Messerschmidt v. Millender

Criminal Procedure: 1. Whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they obtained a facially valid warrant but failed to find that for which they were searching. 2. Whether the Malley/Leon standards for excluding evidence in a criminal proceeding or imposing civil liability under 42 U.S.C. §1983 should be reconsidered or clarified.

(Filing Date: 12-05-2011)

Reichle v. Howards

Constitutional Law: ((1): Whether the existence of probable cause to make an arrest bars a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim; and (2): Whether Secret Service agents should receive qualified and absolute immunity when making split second decisions when protecting the Vice President or the President).

(Filing Date: 12-05-2011)

Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds

Civil Procedure: Whether the two year statute of limitations in section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is subject to tolling, and if so, when does tolling begin.

(Filing Date: 11-29-2011)

Hall v. United States

Bankruptcy Law: Whether a debtor must pay federal income tax on capital gains from the sale of their farm during bankruptcy proceedings.

(Filing Date: 11-29-2011)

First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards

Standing: Whether a private purchaser of real estate settlement services has Article III standing to sue for a RESPA violation when that violation does not affect the price or the quality of the services provided.

(Filing Date: 11-28-2011)

Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC

Civil Procedure: Whether Congress divested federal district courts of federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 with respect to private actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227.

(Filing Date: 11-28-2011)

Vasquez v. United States

Evidence: Whether it is reversible error in a criminal case for a trial court to admit recordings of a conversation for the truth of the matter where the witness admits the point on which the government seeks to establish bias, where a logical inference is necessary to establish an inconsistent statement, and where the statements otherwise constitute inadmissible hearsay.

(Filing Date: 11-28-2011)

Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp

Preemption: Whether the Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”), which regulates the “use” of a locomotive on a railroad line 49 U.S.C. § 20701, preempts the field of state common-law product liability claims by workers injured in railroad maintenance facilities.

(Filing Date: 11-09-2011)

Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris

Preemption: PREEMPTION (Whether federal regulations authorized by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. § 601, et seq.) that require slaughterhouses to hold nonambulatory animals for observation for evidence of disease preempts a state law that requires such animals be immediately killed.)

(Filing Date: 11-09-2011)

Greene v. Fisher

Habeas Corpus: (For the purpose of adjudicating a state prisoner’s petition for federal habeas relief, the temporal cutoff for whether a decision from the Supreme Court qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” is the time of the relevant state-court adjudication on the merits.)

(Filing Date: 11-08-2011)

Smith v. Cain

Criminal Procedure: Whether Louisiana state courts erred when they rejected petitioner's Brady v. Maryland claims that the district attorney failed to produce evidence favorable to the accused and thus violated his due process rights.

(Filing Date: 11-08-2011)

U.S. v. Jones

Criminal Procedure: Whether the government violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights by attaching a GPS tracking device to his vehicle and monitoring his movements on public streets without a valid warrant and without his consent.

(Filing Date: 11-08-2011)

Bobby v. Dixon

Criminal Procedure: Antiterrrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) provides that a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.”

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Jackson v. Hobbs

Criminal Law: Whether sentencing a fourteen year old to life imprisonment without possibility of parole after being convicted of aggravated murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Kawashima v. Holder

Immigration: Whether petitioners' convictions for tax crimes constituted aggravated felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), and thus subjected them to deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

KPMG LLP v. Robert Cocchi et al.

Alternative Dispute Resolution: When a complaint contains both arbitrable and nonarbitrable claims, the Federal Arbitration Act requires courts to compel arbitration of the arbitrable claims.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Magner v. Gallagher

Criminal Law: Discrimination: (Whether a disparate impact claim may be brought under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and, if so, what approach should the Court use to analyze such a claim.)

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Miller v. Alabama

Criminal Law: Whether a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is cruel and usual punishment under the Eighth Amendment when the offender was fourteen years old at the time of the criminal action.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Zivotofsky v. Clinton

Constitutional Law: (1) Whether a suit requiring a federal court to order the State Department to adhere to a Congressional statute requiring official government documents identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel is a justiciable issue, (2) Whether Section 214 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, impermissibly infringes the President's power to recognize foreign sovereigns.

(Filing Date: 11-07-2011)

Gonzalez v. Thaler

Habeas Corpus: Whether the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations for an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be calculated based on “the date on which the judgment became final” as held by the 8th Circuit or “the expiration of the time for seeking such review” as held by the 5th Circuit.

(Filing Date: 11-02-2011)

Perry v. New Hampshire

Evidence: Whether a defendant may exclude eyewitness identification stemming from impermissibly suggestive circumstances, regardless of improper state conduct related to that identification, based on the protections of due process.

(Filing Date: 11-02-2011)

Minneci v. Pollard

Constitutional Law: Bivens Actions: Whether a federal inmate who has adequate remedies under state law may bring a Bivens action against employees of a private corrections company that contracts with the federal government for prison services.

(Filing Date: 11-01-2011)

Rehberg v. Paulk

Civil Procedure: Whether a government official is entitled to absolutely immunity from a section 1983 claim for damages when their false testimony to a grand jury caused the prosecution of an innocent individual.

(Filing Date: 11-01-2011)

Cavazos v. Smith

Habeas Corpus: HABEAS CORPUS (Certiorari granted and the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cavazos v. Smith is reversed)

(Filing Date: 10-31-2011)

Lafler v. Cooper

Post-Conviction Relief: Whether a defendant is entitled to federal habeas relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel when counsel provided objectively unreasonable advice that caused the defendant to reject a plea deal, and, if so, whether the appropriate remedy is a court order that the State either offer specific performance of the rejected deal or release the defendant from custody.

(Filing Date: 10-31-2011)

Missouri v. Frye

Post-Conviction Relief: Whether trial counsel’s failure to disclose an offer made during plea negotiations to his client amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel when the defendant later pled guilty and was sentenced to less favorable terms.

(Filing Date: 10-31-2011)

Elgin v. Department of the Treasury

Employment Law: Whether the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) prevents Federal District Courts from having jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to employment dismissals under the Military Selective Services Act (MSSA).

(Filing Date: 10-17-2011)

Kobel v. Dutch Petroleum

Corporations: (1) Whether the question of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), 28 U.S.C. §1350, is a question of merits or one of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether a corporation may be held liable for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations, such as torture or genocide, under the ATS like any other private party defendant or whether they are immune from such liability.

(Filing Date: 10-17-2011)

Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington

Criminal Procedure: (Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a strip search of individual's arrested for civil contempt.)

(Filing Date: 10-12-2011)

Judulang v. Holder

Immigration: (Whether a lawful permanent resident convicted of an offense that renders him deportable and excludeable under different statutory subsections, but did not depart or reenter the United States after conviction, is categorically foreclosed from seeking discretionary relief under former Section § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationalty Act)

(Filing Date: 10-12-2011)

CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood

Contract Law: (Whether the Credit Repair Organization Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1679 creates a non-waivable right that prevents the enforcement of an arbitration clause.)

(Filing Date: 10-11-2011)

Greene v. Fisher

Habeas Corpus: Whether a Supreme Court decision announced after a state intermediate court's decision, but before a state supreme court’s denial of discretionary review qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

(Filing Date: 10-11-2011)

Pacific Operators Offshore v. Valladolid

Tort Law: (Whether an offshore oil worker injured at an onshore processing site falls under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act.)

(Filing Date: 10-11-2011)

Golan v. Holder

First Amendment: Whether the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment prohibit Congress from removing works that were previously placed in the public domain.

(Filing Date: 10-05-2011)

Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC

Employment Law: Whether the ministerial exception to employment law litigation applies to an employee of a religious organization whose job duties include secular and religious activities.

(Filing Date: 10-05-2011)

Howes v. Fields

Criminal Procedure: Whether police are required to issue Miranda warnings to an incarcerated prisoner during a criminal investigation of an unrelated offense.

(Filing Date: 10-04-2011)

Maples v. Thomas

Criminal Procedure: Whether there is “cause” to excuse a procedural default where petitioner is blameless for the default, the state's own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner's attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his agents at the time of any default.

(Filing Date: 10-04-2011)

Martinez v. Ryan

Criminal Procedure: Whether a state criminal defendant has a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on the first post-conviction relief (PCR) appeal that regards an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when state law prohibits raising a direct appeal for ineffective assistance of trial counsel but has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first post-conviction proceeding.

(Filing Date: 10-04-2011)

Douglas v. Indep. Living Center Of S. Ca; Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital

Preemption: Whether Medicaid recipients and providers maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce certain provisions of the Medicaid Act.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2011)

Reynolds v. United States

Standing: Whether standing may be established under plain reading of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) to challenge an interim rule applying the statute retroactively to parties who committed the offense prior to the statute’s enactment.

(Filing Date: 10-03-2011)

Kappos v. Hyatt

Patents: (1) Whether a plaintiff appealing the denial of a patent by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) through the use of a civil action in Federal District Court under 35 U.S.C. § 145 may introduce new evidence that was not initially presented to the PTO; and (2) whether factual questions related to the new evidence are to be reviewed de novo or whether the district court must give deference to the PTO's decision.

(Filing Date: 01-08-2011)

Setser v. United States

Sentencing: Whether a federal district court properly ordered a federal sentence to run consecutively to a not-yet-imposed state sentence.

(Filing Date: 05-11-2010)

???

:

(Filing Date: )

TEST

:

(Filing Date: )