United States Supreme Court (21 summaries)
Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin
On appeal, the Court affirmed, holding the Bankruptcy code abrogates sovereign immunity for “governmental unit[s],” which include federally recognized Tribes like defendant. 11 U. S. C. §§ 106(a), 101(27).
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174
On appeal, the Court held that Petitioner’s claims were not preempted by NLRA. Longshoremen v. Davis, 476 U. S. 380, 396 (1986) (The “arguably” protected [standard] . . . is not without substance). Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, Respondent intentionally caused destruction of Petitioner’s property during the strike, clearly failing the “reasonable precautions” test for a strike action to be protected by the NRLA. Bethany Medical Center, 328 N. L. R. B. 1094 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
Ciminelli v. United States
Petitioners were indicted and convicted under 18 U. S. C. § 1343 and §1349, wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding the wire fraud statutes protect only interests “long . . . recognized as property,” and intangible economic information is not such an interest. McNally v. United States, 483 U. S. 350, 360 (1987); Carpenter v. United States, 484 U. S. 19, 26 (1987).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Percoco v. United States
Petitioner was convicted, in relevant part, under 18 U. S. C. §§1343, 1346, and 1349, conspiracy to commit “honest-services” wire fraud. The Second Circuit affirmed. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that private citizens may enter circumstances involving the government in which they owe a duty of honesty to the public, this is not always the case. See Skilling v. United States, 561 U. S. 358, 408 (2010).
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
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 (5 summaries)
Jones v. Hendrix
A prisoner may not proceed under the general habeas corpus statute simply because of limitations imposed on filing additional alternative postconviction remedy motions. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2255(h)(1)-(2).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
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 (20 summaries)
Jason Scott Collection, Inc. v. Trendily Furniture, LLC
There is no “intent to confuse requirement” to support the strong inference of secondary meaning where proof of copying is shown. P & P Imports LLC v. Johnson Enterprises, LLC, 46 F.4th 953, 962 (9th Cir. 2022).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
United States v. Carrillo-Lopez
To establish discriminatory purpose for a facially neutral statute, the proponent must show a preponderance of evidence that “the lawmaking body . . . selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” See Pers. Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Paulson
The “rule of the last antecedent” provides that “a limiting clause or phrase . . . should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows.” Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347, 351 (2016) (alteration in original) (quoting Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U.S. 20, 26 (2003)).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
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 (11 summaries)
ODOT v. Pacific Indemnity Co.
The “four corners” rule imposes a duty to defend when the complaint alleges facts, if proved true, which would impose liability covered by the policy. See West Hills Development Co. v. Chartis Claims, 360 Or 650, 653 (2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Ricard v. Klamath Falls Forest Estates Homeowners' Association
Plaintiffs alleging housing discrimination must either show “direct evidence of discriminatory intent” or indirect evidence such that a reasonable factfinder could infer discriminatory intent, like similarly situated individuals not in the protected class claimed by plaintiff treated differently. See Miller v. Racing Commission, 298 Or App 70, 90 (2019); Groshong v. Mutual of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 143 Or App 450, 457 (1996), aff’d, 329 Or 303 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Mayes v. Ramos
A party may recover fees associated with litigating an attorney fee award, unless “the legislature intended to depart from that accepted practice.” Trimet v. Aizawa, 362 Or 1, 14 (2017); see ORCP 68 (denoting procedure for recovering supplemental attorney fees).
Area(s) of Law:- Attorney Fees
State v. Brown
“[A] court errs in failing to instruct the jury that the state bears the burden to disprove [a] defense where defendant puts it at issue." See State v. Abram, 273 Or App 449, 456 (2015); ORS 161.055(1) (The State has the burden of proof of disproving a defense beyond a reasonable doubt.); ORCP 59 B (Trial Court must instruct jury of all matters of law necessary to reach its verdict.).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
K.E.B. v. Bradley
"In sum, to renew a FAPA restraining order, it is no longer necessary for the trial court to find an ‘imminent danger of further abuse.’”
Area(s) of Law:- Family Abuse Prevention Act
Mandell v. Miller
To obtain relief, petitioners must establish that there was a “substantial denial” of their constitutional rights in the proceedings that resulted in their conviction. ORS 138.530(1)(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Little
Probable cause has two components: (1) at the time of the stop, the officer must subjectively believe that a violation has occurred; and (2) that belief must be objectively reasonable under the circumstances. State v. Derby, 301 Or App 134, 138 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions
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