United States Supreme Court (17 summaries)
Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
The text of § 523(a)(2)(A), written in the passive voice, focuses on the act, not the actor who committed it. Dean v. United States, 556 U. S. 568, 572 (2009). Contextually, neighboring provisions specify a particular debtor, while section 523(a)(2)(A) does not, supporting further that Congress was agnostic as to the actor who committed the fraud. In addition, this Court held in earlier iterations of this statute that the culpability of one partner is imputed on the entire partnership, and in reenacting the statute Congress did not take steps to correct that interpretation. Strang v. Bradner, 114 U. S. 555, 561 (1885).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Arellano v. McDonough
Statutes of limitation are presumed to be subject to equitable tolling, but this presumption shifts if inconsistent with the statutory design. Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U. S. 89, 95–96 (1990); John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U. S. 130, 137–138 (2008). It is inconsistent with the comprehensive statutory scheme to subject this narrow exception to equitable tolling. See 38 U. S. C. §§ 5110(a)(1), (b)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta
Despite the “sufficiently important governmental interest” in preventing fraud in charitable organizations, the universal compelled disclosure requirement of major donors was not “narrowly tailored” to that interest in order to pass "exacting scrutiny" as applied to burdens on freedom of association.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey
15 U. S. C. § 717f(h) authorizes Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or States.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (4 summaries)
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
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
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
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (17 summaries)
SoCal Recovery, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa
Under the ADA, FHA, or FEHA, “actual disability” may be established by showing an impairment which “substantially limits” the ability to engage in “major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 3602(h), 12102(1); see Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach, 730 F.3d 1142, 1156 (9th Cir. 2013) (Persons recovering from drug and alcohol addictions are protected from housing discrimination.). On appeal, the panel held that sober living homes may satisfy the “actual disability” inquiry on a collective basis, by offering evidence of admission criteria and house policies. See Rohr v. Salt River Project Agric. Improvement & Power Dist., 555 F.3d 850, 858–59 (9th Cir. 2009). Reversed.
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Dodge v. Evergreen Sch. Dist.
Political speech is “inherently controversial” and quintessential protected speech. See Nat’l Ass’n for Gun Rights, Inc., v. Mangan, 933 F.3d 1102, 1111–12 (9th Cir. 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
United States v. Wells
Impermissible coercion requires both an objective threat of an adverse employment action for refusal to self-incriminate, and a subjective awareness of this penalty. See United States v. Smith, 821 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2016); United States v. Palmquist, 712 F.3d 640 (1st Cir. 2013); United States v. Friedrick, 842 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland
If an ambiguous term is open to multiple usages, the court will defer to the BIA’s “permissible construction.” Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Cal. Dep't of Substs. Control v. Dobbas
Intervenors under Rule 24(a)(2) must assert an interest “protectable under some law,” which has a relationship with the “claims at issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); see Wilderness Soc’y v. U.S. Forest Serv., 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Clark v. Weber
The California prohibition on voting for the recalled governor as their own replacement on a recall ballot is not a severe restriction on the right to vote; similar to a term limit, the restriction is a “neutral candidacy qualification” with no distinction based on a protected class or arbitrary factor. Bates v. Jones, 131 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc); see Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 434 (1992).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
Collier v. Lincoln Life Assurance Co. of Bos.
When a district court applies de novo review to an administrator’s denial of benefits, it affords no deference, evaluating only whether the correct choice was made. Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Ins. Co., 458 F.3d 955, 963 (9th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Prescott v. Santoro
To establish a prima facie case of actual innocence, it requires more than asserting insufficient evidence to support his conviction. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 476–77 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc). It must be more likely than not that no reasonable fact finder could find Petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, when taking the new evidence into consideration with the full record. Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d 1242, 1246 (9th Cir. 2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Hernandez v. Garland
Aliens convicted of “particularly serious crimes” are not eligible for withholding removal or asylum. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), 1231(b)(3)(B)(ii). A “particularly serious crime” is a discretionary determination made by weighing multiple factors. Arbid v. Holder, 700 F.3d 379, 383 (9th Cir. 2012).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
GCIU Emp. Ret. Fund v. MNG Enter.
Actuaries must make “reasonable” assumptions which offer the actuary’s “best estimate” of “anticipated experience” when assessing withdrawal liability for a pension plan. § 1393(a)(1). Using a rate which does not account for expected returns under the plan is not the “best estimate.” United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 Pension Plan v. Energy W. Mining Co., 39 F.4th 730, 740 (D.C. Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Killgore v. Specpro Pro. Servs.
An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. California Whistleblower Protection Act, section 1102.5(c).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Mendoza v. Strickler
The State is “free to choose” a variety of measures less intrusive than incarceration, and does not have to accept a defendant escaping punishment for lack of ability to pay a fine. See Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 244–45 (1970); Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 672 (1983).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Save Our Skies LA v. FAA
Agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(C). However, the FAA has a “categorical exclusion” for editorial changes which have no effect on the flight path of an airplane, bypassing the typical NEPA impact statement requirement. FAA Order 1050.1F 5-6.5.k; see 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(e)(2)(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Gable v. Williams
"Actual innocence," as a procedural default excuse does not require “affirmatively prov[ing] . . . [the defendant] is probably innocent,” as in a solo claim of “actual innocence.” See Jones v. Taylor, 763 F.3d at 1246–47 (internal citation omitted)
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.
[The court which issued the prior judgment has] a strong presumption against enjoining a state court proceeding, as determining the preclusive effect of a prior judgment “is usually the bailiwick of the second court.” Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299, 307 (2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Singh V. Garland
Repeated acts of physical violence, accompanied with death threats, rise to the level of “serious harm” needed to show “past persecution” in petitions for asylum. See Flores Molina v. Garland, 37 F.4th 626, 634 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Nexus Pharms. v. Central Admixture Pharmacy Servs.
“Proceedings to enforce or restrain violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), including the compounding [pharmacy] statute, must be by and in the name of the United States, not a private party.” 21 U.S.C. § 337.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Oregon Court of Appeals (4 summaries)
Myers v. Owners of Certain Real Property
Where a deed provision does not expressly limit the use of adult residential facilities, or in effect allow only other types of residential uses, but instead “uniformly limits all or nearly all development of the property,” that provision is not in violation of ORS 93.270(1)(b)(B). ORS 93.272(5).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
State v. Dearmitt
ORS 136.765 provides that a sentencing court imposing an upward departure sentence cannot “rely on aggravating facts . . . not included either in the indictment or in written notice to the defendant.” State v. Davilla, 280 Or App 43, 62, 380 P3d 1003 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
A. B. v. The Oregon Clinic
Covered entities may disclose protected health information (PHI) without a patient’s consent to other covered entities where it is “necessary to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat” to a person or the public. 45 CFR § 164.512(j); see also ORS 192.558(2)(b) (allowing disclosure of PHI otherwise permitted or required by state or federal law).
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
State v. Cave
Whether evidence is admitted as propensity evidence under OEC 404(4) or nonpropensity evidence under OEC 404(3) has a “significant effect” on the OEC 403 balancing test, as 404(4) propensity evidence’s prejudicial effect generally substantially outweighs its probative value. State v. Baughman, 361 Or 386, 405 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence