United States Supreme Court (8 summaries)
Comcast Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of African American-Owned Media
Under the text and history of 42 U.S.C. §1981, there is no exception to depart from the common law principle requiring a plaintiff to first plead and then prove that its injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s unlawful conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Tort Law
Kansas v. Garcia
IRCA does not expressly or impliedly preempt state prosecution for fraudulently using another person’s information on state and federal tax-withholding forms even when that same information is found on an I-9 form.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S.
A defendant advocating for a particular sentence communicates that a longer sentence is “greater than necessary” and has thereby informed the court of the legal error for an appellate challenge to the substantive reasonableness of the sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
McKinney v. Arizona
A Clemons reweighing is a permissible remedy for an Eddings error, and when an Eddings error is found on collateral review, a state appellate court may conduct a Clemons reweighing on collateral review.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Kisor v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Under the Auer deference doctrine, courts should defer to a government agency’s interpretation of a regulation only where such regulation is ambiguous; unambiguous regulations must be given the effect of their plain meaning.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Rehaif v. United States
In a prosecution under §922(g) and §924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton
Where federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela
Under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (18 summaries)
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
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
McGirt v. Oklahoma
Whether Oklahoma courts can continue to unlawfully exercise, under state law, criminal jurisdiction as “justiciable matter” in Indian country over Indians accused of major crimes enumerated under the Indian Major Crimes Act—which are under exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Tanzin v. Tanvir
Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) of 1993, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq., permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Liu v. SEC
Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may seek and obtain disgorgement from a court as “equitable relief” for a securities law violation even though this Court has determined that such disgorgement is a penalty.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Bachiller v. United States
(1) Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), applies retroactively to a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion? (2) Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3) is unconstitutionally vague pursuant to Johnson? (3) Whether the Eleventh Circuit's rule that reasonable jurists could not debate an issue foreclosed by binding circuit precedent?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Duhart v. United States
Is the residual clause definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Hale v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. §924(a) provides for criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate commerce absent proof that they knew of their felon status, or of the firearm’s movement in interstate commerce?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Solomon v. United States
(1) If the Supreme Court in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) holds §924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague, is that ruling retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review? (2) If the court in Davis reinterprets §924(c)(3)(B) to require a “conduct-based” approach because the statute is unconstitutionally vague under the categorical approach, does a successive §2255 petition challenging a conviction under the unconstitutional categorical approach “contain . . . a new rule of constitutional law” as required by §2255(h)(2)?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Babb v. Sec’y, Department of Veterans Affairs
Petition granted limited to the following question: Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any “discrimination based on age,” 29 U.S.C. §633(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Douglas v. United States
Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Moody v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. §924(a) provides for criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate commerce absent proof that they knew of their felon status, or of the firearm’s movement in interstate commerce?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rodriguez v. United States
Whether the ‘risk of force’ clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Shular v. United States
Whether the determination of a “serious drug offense” under the Armed Career Criminal Act requires the same categorical approach used in the determination of a “violent felony” under the same statute
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans v. Wilkie, Sec. of VA
Whether this Court Should Grant Certiorari to Resolve an Important Point of Law and a Conflict Between Circuits Concerning Judicial Review of an Interpretive VA Regulation Under the Administrative Procedures Act and Whether It Should Be Foreclosed Under 38 U.S.C. § 502 When the Veterans Judicial Reform Act Provides the Sole Avenue for Review of the Secretary’s Decisions
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor and Indus.
Whether Oregon violated the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment by compelling the Kleins to design and create a custom wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding ritual, in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Allen v. Cooper, Gov. of NC
Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, Pub. L. No. 101-553, 104 Stat. 2749 (1990), in providing remedies for authors of original expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by States.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC
Whether an order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay is a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) (1).
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Oregon Court of Appeals (12 summaries)
Rudnitskyy v. State
“[P]etitioner has the burden of both production and proof to ‘establish that his or her counsel did not make all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.’” Pereida-Alba v. Coursey, 356 Or 654, 672 n 14.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
State v. Schmidt
“[I]n light of the first two of the three principal purposes justifying the court-created inventory exception to the warrant requirement - to protect the owner’s property while in policy custody and to reduce and tend to prevent the assertion of false claims against police - before conducting an inventory of a vehicle in a noncriminal and nonemergency context, where vehicle occupants are present and not under arrest police must ‘give occupants who are present and not under arrest notice that they may retrieve readily removable personal belongings before an inventory is conducted.’” State v. Fulmer, 366 Or 224, 234-35 (2020).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
Dept. of Human Services v. M. F.
“A juvenile court cannot assert jurisdiction . . . simply because it is concerned that a parent might not be sufficiently attentive . . . DHS must [provide] evidence sufficient to establish that the parent in fact has parenting deficits that create a current threat of serious loss or injury to the child that is reasonably likely to be realized.” Dept. of Human Services v. M. F., 294 Or App 688, 699 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
State v. James
Under the plain meanings of “reliable” and “authority,” the Court understood the phrase to mean a source, widely used within that community, whose propositions or opinions are trustworthy and deserving of the community’s reliance and acceptance.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. M. A. S.
Under ORS 419C.450, “adjudication” and “disposition” are distinct phases of delinquency proceedings and adjudication hearings are to determine jurisdiction, thus, presenting restitution evidence at a dispositional hearing is too late.
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Brownlee
“A search incident to arrest is valid where an officer has probable cause to make an arrest, the search would likely uncover evidence of the crime of arrest, and the search is reasonable in time, scope, and intensity.” State v. Mazzola, 356 Or 804, 811-12, 345 P3d 424 (2015). “Whether a search incident to arrest is reasonable in scope and intensity is not dependent on an arrestee’s immediate possession, but whether the items searched was immediately associated with the arrestee at the time.” State v. Burgholzler, 185 Or App 254, 260, 59 P3d 582 (2002).
Area(s) of Law:- Evidence
State v. Oxford
To determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, the Court took the context of the case into consideration along with other factors. See State v. Evans, 211 Or App 162, 166-68 (2007), aff’d, 344 Or 358 (2008) (Whether the prejudice was so great a mistrial was the only legally acceptable alternative, whether the prejudice was cured by jury instruction, and whether the incident was sufficiently isolated).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
State v. Stacey
Plain-error review has three requirements: (1) the error was one of law; (2) the error was apparent and not reasonably in dispute; and (3) the error appeared on the record. State v. Coverstone, 260 Or App 714, 715, 320 P3d 670 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Growing Green Panda v. Dept. of Human Services
“When an agency has interpreted its own rules, ‘we give significant deference to that interpretation and are required to affirm it if it is “plausible,” [as long as it’s consistent with itself, its context or other source of law].’” Boatwright v. Dept. of Human Services, 293 Or App 301, 304-305 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Anantha v. Clarno
The proposed measures must satisfy the two-part framework: 1) whether a “unifying principle” can be identified, embracing a single subject, and if so 2) whether “other matters” contained within are “properly connected” to that principle. State ex rel Caleb v. Beesley, 326 Or 83, 91-93, 949 P2d 724 (1997).
Area(s) of Law:- Ballot Titles
Dept. of Human Services v. L. J. W.
“ORS 419B.337(2) grants the court the authority to order a parent to submit to a psychological evaluation to help design services needed, if there is ‘a rational connection between the service to be provided and the basis for jurisdiction.’” State ex rel Juv. Dept. v. G. L., 220 Or App 216, 223, 185 P3d 483, rev den, 345 Or 158 (2008).
Area(s) of Law:- Juvenile Law
State v. Guynn
“A person commits the offense of ‘following too closely’ if the person ‘[d]rives a motor vehicle so as to follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicles and the traffic upon, and condition of, the highway.” ORS 811.485(1)(a). “A driver has the duty [to all cars] to not follow the preceding car so closely as to create an ‘unreasonable risk’ to others under the driving conditions present.” Garland v. Wilcox, 220 Or 325 (1960).
Area(s) of Law:- Traffic Infractions