Jake Haley

United States Supreme Court (13 summaries)

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

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

Oregon Court of Appeals (2 summaries)

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

Back to Top