National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
The California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act's notification requirements likely violate the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Trump v. Hawaii
Proclamation No. 9645 is within the President’s broad discretion Under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f) and § 1152(a)(1)(A) to suspend entry into the United States and Respondents did not establish a likelihood of success on the merits that the Proclamation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Abbott v. Perez
28 U. S. C. §1253 grants jurisdiction for review where an order has the same practical effect as an order granting or denying an injunction and past discrimination does not affect the presumption of legislative good faith in the case of a legislature’s redistricting plan.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Ohio v. American Express
Anti-steering provisions within a merchant contract are not per-se anticompetitive under the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Corporations
Carpenter v. United States
The Government conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it accesses cell phone records that include cell-site location information.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Currier v. Virginia
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the 14th Amendment does not bar the re-litigating of issues or introduction of evidence for a severed offense, where the Defendant requested severance of the trials and has been acquitted of the related charges.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Ortiz v. United States
A judge’s simultaneous service on the Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Military Commission Review violates neither §973(b)(2)(A) nor the Appointments Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.
Damages for lost foreign profits are recoverable under §284 of the Patent Act if the domestic nature of the infringement is proven under §271(f)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Lucia v. SEC
The Security and Exchange Commission's administrative law judges are “Officers of the United States,” and are therefore subject to the Appointments Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Pereira v. Sessions
A document that is titled “notice to appear” but does not include time-and-place information cannot qualify as a “notice to appear” under 8 U. S. C. 1229(a) and thus does not trigger the stop-time rule.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
States have the authority to require out-of-state retailers with no physical presence within the state to collect and remit a sales tax.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States
Employee stock options are not taxable compensation for purposes of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Benisek v. Lamone
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Petitioners’ motion for a preliminary injunction because the balance of equities and the public interest tilted against the motion.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Chavez-Meza v. United States
Where the record demonstrates that a judge has expressed a reasoned basis for a non-proportional sentence reduction, the explanation is adequate to support the sentence reduction.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Gill v. Whitford
A “citizen’s abstract interest in policies adopted by the legislature” is insufficient to demonstrate Article III standing.
Area(s) of Law:- Standing
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
Existence of probable cause for an arrest does not bar a claim under 42 USC § 1983 where an official policy of retaliation against the exercise of free speech is alleged.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Rosales-Mireles v. United States
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), a defendant is ordinarily entitled to relief if there was a miscalculation in determining the Sentencing Guidelines Range.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical
When interpreting a foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, a federal court must "accord respectful consideration" to a foreign government’s interpretation of the law, but is not bound by this interpretation.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
The statutory prohibition of certain apparel in polling places during Election Day serves the permissible objective of limiting distraction and partisan discord for voters exercising their civic duty, but such statutes must articulate a determinate scope to allow for reasoned application.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
China Agritech Inc. v. Resh
Upon denial of class certification, the statute of limitations is not tolled for a putative class member who failed to promptly join an existing suit or file an individual action and seeks to commence the class action anew.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute
The Ohio voter removal process does not violate the National Voter Registration Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Sveen v. Melin
Retroactive application of state statute rescinding any revocable beneficiary designations in the event of divorce, does not violate the Constitution's Contracts Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Azar v. Garza
When a civil case becomes moot, it is established practice to reverse or vacate the lower court’s judgment and remand with directions to dismiss the case.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Hughes v. United States
Sentence reductions are available for plea deals under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) when the guideline range is lowered, so long as the range was considered when the sentence was imposed.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Koons v. United States
Those whose sentences are “based on” mandatory minimums and substantial assistance to the Government do not qualify for sentence reductions under revised “Guideline ranges.”
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling
A single-asset statement qualifies as a "statement respecting the debtor's financial condition" for purposes of 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al.
Members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission exhibited an impermissible hostility towards religion and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment