United States Supreme Court

2022

January 1 summary

Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.

Plaintiffs “may allege that a fiduciary breached the duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones.” Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U. S. 523, 530 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

February 1 summary

Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.

The safe harbor for copyright applications provided by 17 U.S.C. §411(b) excuses mistakes of fact and law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

March 6 summaries

Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P. S. C.

When deciding the timeliness of a third party’s motion to intervene, the most important consideration for courts is whether the party sought to intervene “as soon as it became clear” that its interests “would no longer be protected” by the parties in the case. United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U. S. 385, 394 (1977).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States v. Zubaydah

The state secrets privilege bars the disclosure of information upon the Government’s showing that disclosure would have a “reasonable probability” to harm national security. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 6–7, 11 (1953).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

FBI v. Fazaga

The District Court dismissed Respondent's claims but the Ninth Circuit reversed saying §1806(f) displaced the state secrets privilege. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the holding saying §1806(f) does not have that effect.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Houston Community College System v. Wilson

“In this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers—and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Ramirez v. Collier

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 states that the state cannot impose substantial burden on the exercise of religion to people in state institutions unless the government proves the burden “(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 2 U. S. C. §2000cc–1(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Badgerow v. Walters

Rules and maxims of statutory interpretation dictate that when congress omits language from one section of the statute while including it elsewhere the Court must find that choice as intentional.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

April 7 summaries

Hemphill v. New York

Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant who opens the door to responsive evidence also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Boechler v. Commissioner

The thirty-day limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process determination pursuant to 26 U. S. C. § 6330(d)(1) is non jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Brown v. Davenport

A petitioner must satisfy the burdens for both the Brecht and the AEDPA tests in order to qualify for habeas relief.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation

28 U. S. C. § 1606 requires, when sovereign immunity does not apply, foreign states to be subject to the same substantive law a private counterpart would face in equivalent circumstances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC

Heightened scrutiny is used to evaluate regulations that lack impermissible underlying purposes or justifications, which examine the content of speech in order to “draw [] neutral, location-based lines."

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States v. Madero

Congress does not have to extend Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to residents of Puerto Rico. 42 U. S. C. §1382c(a)(1)(B)(i).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller

Emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions of Spending Clause antidiscrimination statutes.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

May 5 summaries

Shurtleff v. Boston

When a government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude speech based on “religious viewpoint”; doing so “constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.” Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 112 (2001).

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Federal Election Comm’n v. Ted Cruz

§ 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BRCA) limits political speech, abridging the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Patel v. Garland

Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under 8 U. S. C. §1255 and the other provisions enumerated in 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.

Courts may not make arbitration preferential procedural rules.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez

"[U]nder [28 U.S.C.] §2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on ineffective assistance of state postconviction counsel."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

June 32 summaries

Gallardo v. Marstiller

States are permitted to “seek reimbursement from settlement payments allocated for future medical care” under §1396k(a)(1)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Segel v. Fitzgerald

"[T]he Bankruptcy Clause offers Congress flexibility, but does not permit the arbitrary, disparate treatment of similarly situated debtors based on geography.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon

“[A]ny class of workers directly involved in transporting goods across state or international borders falls within [the Federal Arbitration Act] §1’s exemption.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Egbert v. Boule

“[I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Denezpi v. United States

“Dual-sovereignty doctrine; An offense defined by one sovereign is necessarily a different offense from that of another sovereign. The two offenses can therefore be separately prosecuted without offending the Double Jeopardy Clause – even if they have identical elements and could not be separately prosecuted if enacted by a single sovereign.” Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. ____, ____ (2019).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Garland v. Gonzalez

District Courts do not have jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez

8 U.S.C. §1231(a)(6) does not require the Government to offer noncitizens detained for more than six months bond hearings in which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Kemp v. United States

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions alleging a legal error by a judge are subject to the 1-year limitation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.

A party lacking governmental involvement does not constitute a “foreign or international tribunal” under 28 U.S.C. §1782.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra

"[U]nless HHS conducts a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

George v. McDonough

A change in law does not constitute “clear and unmistakable error” of the sort that will allow collateral relief from a final Veterans Affairs benefit decision under 38 U.S.C. § 7111.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Golan v. Saada

The court of appeal imposed “an atextual, categorical requirement that courts consider all possible ameliorative measures” on a discretionary decision, inconsistent with the treaty’s goals.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Family Law

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

"[T]he FAA preempts the rule of Iskanian insofar as it precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas

The Restoration Act does not turn “state gaming laws . . . [into] . . . surrogate federal law on tribal lands.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tribal Law

Carson v. Makin

Programs that prohibit private beneficiaries from using public funds at religious entities violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Marietta Mem'l Hosp. Emp. Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.

When health care plan terms are applied uniformly to all plan participants, the plan does not violate the Medicare Secondary Payer statute because it does not “differentiate in the benefits it provides” or takes into account Medicare eligibility.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Shoop v. Twyford

"A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action, 28 U.S.C. §1651(a), when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

U.S. v. Taylor

An attempted, Hobbs Act robbery, does not qualify as a crime of violence because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened the use of force.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

United States v. Washington

40 U.S.C §3172’s federal waiver of immunity does not “clearly and unambiguously” authorize a state to enact a discriminatory law that facially singles out the Federal Government for unfavorable treatment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Berger v. N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP

North Carolina's legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in litigation regarding voter I.D. laws because they represent a state's interest which is not otherwise being represented.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Nance v. Ward

Prisoners may maintain method-of-execution challenges under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if their proposed alternative method is not authorized by state law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen

The Second Amendment prohibits states from preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm in public because they had not demonstrated a need for self-defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety

States may not invoke sovereign immunity as a legal defense to USERRA suits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Vega v. Tekoh

A Miranda violation is not itself a Fifth Amendment violation, and the use of an "un-Mirandized" statement does not provide a valid basis for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, for Valley Hospital Medical Center

“Entitled to benefits” in 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(I) is to be read as meeting the statutory criteria expressed in §§ 426(a)–(b), not actually having used Medicare funds for treatment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org.

“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including . . . the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Concepcion v. United States

The First Step Act allows a district court to consider intervening changes of law or fact when exercising their discretion to modify a sentence.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment do not permit the government to censor an individual engaging in personal religious observances.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Xiulu Ruan v. United States

21 U. S. C. § 841’s “knowingly or intentionally” mens rea applies to the statute’s “except as authorized” clause.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta

The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Biden v. Texas

“[T]he Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

West Virginia v. EPA

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act should be narrowly construed to regulate individual power plants. The CPP's scheme to create generation shifting for the nation's power sector as a whole is not within its authority under Section 111(d).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

July 0 summaries

August 0 summaries

September 0 summaries

October 0 summaries


Back to Top