United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

2020

January 6 summaries

Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.

Whether the government debt-exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act violates the First Amendment and whether severing the exception from the remainder of the statute would constitute the proper remedy for any such violation of the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Rutledge v. Pharm. Care Mgmt. Ass’n

Whether the Eighth Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’s statute regulating PBM’s drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of States, is preempt by ERISA, in contravention of this Court’s precedent that ERISA does not preempt rate regulation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • ERISA

Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board

Whether, under section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 355(f), and section 8 of the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231g, the Railroad Retirement Board’s denial of a request to reopen a prior benefits determination is a “final decision” subject to judicial review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Chiafalo v. Washington

Whether the U.S. Constitution provides presidential electors discretion in casting their ballot and whether state law seeking to regulate how presidential electors vote violates the U.S. Constitution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Dist. Court

Whether the “arise out of or related to” requirement is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania

Whether the agencies had statutory authority under the ACA and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

February 1 summary

Fulton v. City of Philadelphia

(1) Whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable? (2) Whether Employment Div. v. Smith should be revisited? (3) Whether a government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

March 5 summaries

Borden v. United States

Does the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (the “ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) encompass crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

California v. Texas

1. Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision in Section 5000A(a). 2. Whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional. 3. If so, whether the minimum coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club

Whether the deliberative process privilege incorporated in Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act protects a federal agency from compelled disclosure of draft documents created as part of a formal consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act where the consultation process resulted in subsequent modification of said draft documents.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Jones v. Mississippi

Whether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Brownback v. King

Whether 28 U.S.C. §2676 of the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA") bars a Bivens action involving the same claimant, injuries, and government employees of an FTCA claim in which the United States obtained a final judgment in its favor on the ground that a private person would not exist as liable under state tort law for the injuries alleged.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

April 1 summary

Van Buren v. United States

Whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

May 0 summaries

June 0 summaries


Back to Top