United States Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in February 2020

Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S.

A defendant advocating for a particular sentence communicates that a longer sentence is “greater than necessary” and has thereby informed the court of the legal error for an appellate challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma

ERISA §1113's three-year statute of limitations for breaches in which a plaintiff has "actual knowledge" requires a factual showing that the plaintiff was actually aware of the information that constitutes the alleged breach. A showing of constructive knowledge is insufficient.

Area(s) of Law:

Shular v. United States

Section 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) of the Armed Career Criminal Act’s definition of “serious drug offense,” requires that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute; the state offense need not match certain generic offenses.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Hernandez v. Mesa

A Bivens remedy does not exist for Fourth or Fifth Amendment claims in a cross-border shooting context.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

McKinney v. Arizona

A Clemons reweighing is a permissible remedy for an Eddings error, and when an Eddings error is found on collateral review, a state appellate court may conduct a Clemons reweighing on collateral review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Monasky v. Tagliere

A child's habitual residence under 22 U.S.C. §9003(b) depends on the totality of the circumstances and it is not necessary for there to be an actual agreement between the parents. Further, a first-impression determination of habitual residence is subject to review for clear error.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Bob Richards rule, which provides that in the absence of an agreement, a refund belongs to the group member responsible for the losses that led to it, promulgated in response to issues stemming from the IRS’s allowing affiliated groups of corporations to file consolidated federal tax returns, is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Feliciano

The Puerto Rican courts lacked jurisdiction to issue payment and seizure orders after the case was removed to federal district court for Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Back to Top