United States Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in June 2020

Nestlé USA, Inc. v. Doe

Operational decisions, common to most corporate business, is not a sufficient connection between domestic conduct and an Alien Tort Statute claim in order to give federal courts jurisdiction to hear a claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue

Denying a benefit, generally available, based only on religious identity imposes on the free exercise clause and can only be justified by the highest order of state interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States PTO v. Booking.com B.V.

Whether a term is generic for the purposes of federal trademark registration depends on its meaning to consumers and this distinctiveness inquiry focuses on the term’s whole meaning and not its isolated parts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Trademarks

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

The Policy Requirement in the Leadership Act does not violate the First Amendment as applied to United States corporation's foreign affiliates because the U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-U.S. citizens outside of U.S. soil.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

June Med. Servs. L. L. C. v. Russo

Louisiana’s admitting-privileges law for abortion doctors represents a substantial obstacle to a woman pursuing an abortion and is therefore unconstitutional.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau renders it unconstitutional because it is dominated by a single director and isolated from removal by the president, however, the provisions are severable.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Thuraissigiam

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act’s (IIRIRA) limitations on asylum seekers seeking habeas review is constitutional and does not violate due process.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Dep't of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) decision to terminate Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was arbitrary and capricious because there were no reasons offered for terminating the forbearance policy, DHS did not consider alternatives within the ambit of the existing forbearance policy, and it did not address whether there was legitimate reliance on the prior DACA memorandum.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Andrus v. Texas

In assessing whether a defendant has made a showing of prejudice, a reviewing court must consider “the totality of the available mitigation evidence - both that adduced at trial, and the evidence adduced in the habeas proceeding' - and 'reweig[h] it against the evidence in aggravation." Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 397-98 (2000).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Bostock v. Clayton County

Title VII is violated when an employee is fired on the basis of being gay, lesbian, or transgender.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

U.S. Forest Serv. v. Cowpasture River Pres. Ass’n

"Rights-of-way through any Federal lands may be granted by the Secretary of the Interior or appropriate agency head for pipeline purposes for the transportation of oil, natural gas, synthetic liquid or gaseous fuels, or any refined product produced therefrom to any applicant possessing the qualifications provided in section 181 of this title in accordance with the provisions of this section." 30 U.S.C. § 185(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez

The three-strikes provision under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, denying prisoners the ability to bring suit without paying a filing fee if three or more prior suits were dismissed, includes all dismissals for failure to state a claim—with or without prejudice.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Banister v. Davis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), Rule 59(e) motions to change or amend a judgment of the habeas court is not a “second or successive habeas application."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Inv., LLC.

The Appointments Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §2, cl. 2, applies to the appointments of some territorial officials, but not to officials whose powers and duties are primarily local.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC.

"A written provision in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a transaction involving commerce to settle by arbitration a controversy thereafter arising out of such contract or transaction*** shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." 9 USC §2.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Nasrallah v. Barr

In the context of federal immigration law, Convention Against Torture (CAT) orders may be reviewed alongside final orders of removal.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A.

Plaintiffs lack standing under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) if they would receive the benefit of fixed payments regardless of the outcome on their claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Back to Top