United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

2021

January 12 summaries

Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, Att'y Gen. of CA

Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P.

Whether, as the Fifth Circuit alone has held, district courts “lack[] discretion to deny or reduce” appellate costs deemed “taxable” in district court under Fed. R. App. P. 39(e).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Gov't of Guam v. United States

1. Whether a non-CERCLA settlement can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B). 2. Whether a settlement that expressly disclaims any liability determination and leaves the settling party exposed to future liability can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Environmental Law

Greer v. United States

Whether when applying plain-error review based upon an intervening United States Supreme Court decision, a circuit court of appeals may review matters outside the trial record to determine whether the error affected a defendant’s substantial rights or impacted the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

HollyFrontier Cheyenne Ref. v. Renewable Fuels Ass'n

In order to qualify for a hardship exemption under § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) of the Renewable Fuel Standards, does a small refinery need to receive uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L.

Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off-campus.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.

Whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Mnuchin, Sec'y of Treasury v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation

Whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations (ANCs) established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are “Indian Tribe[s]” for purposes of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 42 U.S.C. 801(g)(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Sanchez, Jose S. v. Wolf, Sec. of Homeland

Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of Temporary Protected Status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Terry, Tarahrick v. United States

Whether pre-August 3, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

United States v. Gary, Michael A.

Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a), is automatically entitled to plain-error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that offense is knowledge of his status as a felon, regardless of whether he can show that the district court’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

United States v. Palomar-Santiago, Refugio

Whether a defendant automatically satisfies all three of the prerequisites under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) solely by showing that he was removed for a crime that would not be considered a removable offense under current circuit law, even if he cannot independently demonstrate administrative exhaustion or deprivation of the opportunity for judicial review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

February 3 summaries

PennEast Pipeline Co., LLC v. New Jersey

Whether the NGA delegates to FERC certificate holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Dept. of Homeland Sec. v. New York

1. Whether entities that are not subject to the public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(A), and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that provision, are proper parties to challenge the final rule. 2. Whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or arbitrary and capricious.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Wooden, William D. v. United States

Did the Sixth Circuit err by expanding the score of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1) in the absence of clear statutory definition with regard to the vague term "committed on occasions differed from one another"?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

March 2 summaries

United States v. Vaello-Madero, Jose L.

Whether Congress violated the equal-protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by establishing Supplemental Security Income—a program that provides benefits to needy aged, blind, and disabled individuals—in the 50 States and the District of Columbia, and in the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to a negotiated covenant, but not extending it to Puerto Rico.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Thompson v. Clark

The Petition is Limited to the Following Question: Whether the rule that a plaintiff must await favorable termination before bringing a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process requires the plaintiff to show that the criminal proceeding against him has “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” Laskar v. Hurd, 972 F.3d 1278, 1293 (11th Cir. 2020), or that the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively indicates his innocence,” Lanning v. City of Glens Falls, 908 F.3d 19, 22 (2d Cir. 2018); see also Laskar, 972 F.3d at 1293 (acknowledging 7-1 circuit conflict).

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

April 0 summaries


Back to Top