United States Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in May 2021

San Antonio v. Hotels.com

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 governs the taxation of appellate “costs,” and the question in this case is whether a district court has the discretion to deny or reduce those costs.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Guam v. United States

Contribution actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) may be pursued only after settlement of a “CERCLA-specific liability.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

United States v. Palomar-Santiago

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, holding that each statutory requirement under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d) is mandatory.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Under Yamaha Motor Corp., U.S.A. v. Calhoun, 516 U.S. 199, 204 (1996), and despite the fact that appellate courts “may not reach beyond the certified order to address other orders made in the case,” appellate courts “may address any issue fairly included within the certified order because it is the order that is appealable, and not the controlling question identified by the district court.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Caniglia v. Strom et al.

The “community caretaking exception” to warrantless searches articulated in Cady v. Dombrowski does not apply to homes, because there is a constitutional difference between vehicles and homes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

CIC Services, LLC v. IRS

The Anti-Injunction Act bars any “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). However, a reporting requirement is not a tax, and a suit brought to set aside such a rule is not one to restrain the “assessment or collection” of a tax—even if the information will help the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) collect future tax revenue. See Direct Marketing Assn. v. Brohl, 575 U.S. 1, 9-10 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Edwards v. Vannoy

New procedural rules announced by the Supreme Court are not retroactively applied on federal collateral review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Back to Top