U.S. Supreme Court 2017 Term Arguments: Recent Episodes
Oyez
A case in which the Court held that President Donald Trump’s Proclamation restricting travel and immigration to the US from certain countries (“travel ban”) does not violate the president’s statutory authority or the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Court was also asked, but did not decide, whether a global injunction barring enforcement of parts of the Proclamation is impermissibly overbroad.
A case in which the Court decided that the district court erred in disregarding the presumption of good faith on the part of the Texas Legislature and improperly reversed the burden of proof in requiring the state to show a lack of discriminatory intent in adopting new districting plans; the Court also held that one of the state house districts at issue was an impermissible racial gerrymander.
A case in which the Court decided that a federal court determining foreign law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1 should accord respectful consideration to a foreign government’s submission, but the court is not bound to accord conclusive effect to the foreign government’s statements.
A case in which the Court held that a notice to appear for a removal hearing that does not specify the place and time of the hearing does not trigger the stop-time rule of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), which gives the attorney general discretion to cancel removal for an alien who, among other criteria, has been continuously physically present in the country for at least ten years.
A case in which the Court held that because the record in this case as a whole demonstrated that the judge had a reasoned basis for his decision, the judge’s explanation for reducing Adaucto Chavez-Meza’s sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to the middle instead of the bottom of the amended Federal Guidelines range was adequate.
A case in which the Court decided that administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are "officers of the United States" subject to the Constitution's Appointments Clause.
A case in which the Court held that under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4), which pertains to reimbursement by defendants to victims for expenses incurred during the investigation or prosecution related to the offense, the words “investigation” and “proceedings” encompass only government investigations and criminal proceedings and do not include private investigations and civil or bankruptcy proceedings.
A case in which the Court was asked to decide, among other things, whether the state of Washington’s use of culverts to divert water violates its treaties with Indian tribes, and if so, whether the state must replace those culverts, at great cost.
A case in which the Court overruled Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, holding that states may require sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales tax for goods sold within the state.
A case in which the Court decided that a statement regarding a specific asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s . . . financial condition” under section 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code.
A case in which the Court held that WesternGeco’s award for lost profits was a permissible domestic application of § 284 of the Patent Act.
A case in which the Court decided that employee stock options are not taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act because they are not “money remuneration.”
A case in which the Court upheld the federal district court's denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction by several Republican voters who alleged partisan gerrymandering in Maryland.
A case in which the Court decided that the petitioners, who were criminal defendants, were not eligible for sentence reductions under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) because their sentences were not “based on” their lowered Federal Sentencing Guidelines ranges, but rather were “based on” the mandatory minimum sentences for their offenses and their substantial assistance to the government.
A case in which the Court decided that a sentence imposed pursuant to a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (“Type C”) plea bargain is “based on” the defendant’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines range as long as that range was a component of the framework the court used in imposing the sentence or accepting the plea bargain, meaning that in this case, Erik Hughes could seek a sentencing reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
A case in which the Court decided that upon denial of class certification, a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing a individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time allowed by the applicable statute of limitations.
A case in which the Court held that challenges to the federal district-wide policy of using of pretrial physical restraints are moot.
A case in which the Court held that its prior decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation addressed only a question of statutory interpretation, not the question whether Indian tribes have sovereign immunity in in rem lawsuits.
A case in which the Court decided that pro-life pregnancy center petitioners were likely to succeed on their claim that the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act violated the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court decided that the retroactive application of Minnesota’s revocation-upon-divorce statute, which automatically nullifies the designation of an ex-spouse as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy or other will substitute, does not violate the contracts clause of the Constitution.
A case in which the Court held unconstitutional a Minnesota statute that prohibited individuals from wearing political apparel at or around polling places on primary or election days.
A case in which the Court decided that the existence of probable cause for Fane Lozman’s arrest for disrupting a city council meeting did not bar his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim under the circumstances of this case.
A case in which, following the enactment of the Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act, the Court vacated the judgment on review and remanded with instructions to first vacate the district court's contempt finding and its denial of Microsoft's motion to quash, and then to direct the district court to dismiss as moot a case regarding whether a provision of the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2703, requires that an email provider who has been served with a warrant provide the federal government with emails, even when the email records are stored exclusively outside the United States.
A case in which the Court decided the State of Illinois’ extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977), which held otherwise, was overruled.
A case in which the Court held, under the “rule of reason,” that the government’s showing that American Express’s anti-steering provisions stifled price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform was not sufficient to prove a violation of antitrust law.
A case in which the Court decided that wiretap orders authorized by a judge for the federal district of Kansas in a government investigation of a suspected Kansas drug distribution ring were not facially insufficient because they did not lack any information that the wiretap statute required them to include, and because the challenged language permitting interception outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction was surplus.
A case in which the Court held that a miscalculation of a Federal Guidelines sentencing range that has been determined to be plain and to affect a defendant’s substantial rights calls for a court of appeals to exercise its discretion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) to vacate the defendant’s sentence in the ordinary case.
A case in which the Court decided that because Michael Currier consented to a severance of the multiple charges against him, his second trial and resulting conviction, following an acquittal at his first trial, did not violate the double jeopardy clause.
A case in which the Court was asked to clarify the scope of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in a “criminal case”—specifically whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when a criminal defendant is compelled to incriminate himself and the incriminating statement is used in a probable cause hearing.
A case in which the Court held that a criminal defendant has the right under the Sixth Amendment to insist that his attorney not concede guilt in a capital case.
A case in which the Court decided that because service advisors at car dealerships are “salesm[e]n . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles,” 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A), they are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime-pay requirements.
A case in which the Court decided that when one of multiple cases consolidated under FRCP 42(a) is finally decided, that ruling confers upon the losing party the right to immediate appeal regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases are still pending.
A case in which the Court was asked to determine (1) whether it has jurisdiction to review two of the consolidated cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3); (2) whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell’s simultaneous service on the US Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) and the US Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFCCA) violated the Appointments Clause; (3) whether Judge Mitchell’s service on the CMCR disqualified him from continuing to serve on the AFCCA; and (4) whether the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding Petitioner’s claims moot.
A case in which the Court upheld Ohio's list-maintenance process against a challenge under under National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) and the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA).
A case in which the Court held that a driver of a rental car who has permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car.
A case in which the Court held that a police officer cannot, under the Fourth Amendment, enter private property in order to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
A case in which the Court held that the United States is permitted to intervene in this particular dispute over a compact between states to defend "distinctively federal interests" that a normal litigant might not be permitted to pursue in traditional litigation.
A case in which the Court held that Florida made a legally sufficient showing as to the possibility of fashioning an effective remedial decree equitably apportioning the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin (ACF Basin).
A case in which the Court interpreted the parenthetical phrase “not to exceed 25 percent,” as used in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), to mean exactly 25 percent, thereby precluding the district court from exercising its discretion to allocate a lower percentage of the damage award to attorney's fees.
A case in which the Court held that a conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a) for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct or impede the due administration of the tax laws requires proof that the defendant acted with knowledge of a pending Internal Revenue Service action.
A case in which the Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Exercise Clause.
A case in which the Court decided that provisions of the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) that prohibit state authorization and licensing of sports gambling schemes violate the Constitution’s anticommandeering rule, and that no other PASPA provisions are severable from the provisions at issue.
A case in which the Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g) does not provide a freestanding attachment immunity exception that allows terror victim judgment creditors to attach and execute upon assets of foreign state; rather, the immunity of property must be rescinded under a separate provision under that section.
A case in which the Court held that the warrantless seizure and search of cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 127 days violates the Fourth Amendment.
A case in which the Court held that the anti-retaliation provision for "whistleblowers" in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 applies only to individuals who fall within the act’s specific definition of "whistleblower," that is, those who disclose allegedly unlawful activity to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
A case in which the Court held that that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 does not strip state courts of jurisdiction to hear claims under the Securities Act of 1933, nor does it permit defendants to remove class actions alleging only 1933 Act claims from state to federal court.
A case in which the Court decided that inter partes review, which authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider and cancel an already-issued patent claim under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-391, does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
A case in which the Court decided that when the United States Patent and Trademark Office institutes an inter partes review to reconsider an already-issued patent claim, under 35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319, it must decide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged.
A case in which the Court held that a statute that directs the federal courts to "promptly dismiss” certain lawsuits without affecting any underlying laws does not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles.
A case in which the Court held that the safe harbor provision of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), which prohibits a trustee from avoiding a transfer made by or to a financial institution, does not include transfers where the benefit and detriment of the transfer impact companies that are not financial institutions.
A case in which the Court decided that the tolling provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1367 suspends or “stops the clock” on the limitations period for supplemental state law claims while the underlying case is pending in federal court and for 30 days thereafter, rather than merely providing a 30-day grace period after dismissal for the plaintiff to refile in state court.
A case in which the Court held that a designation of non-statutory insider status is reviewable under the standard of clear error because the "mixed question" of law and fact at issue is primarily factual.
A case in which the Court decided that the district court's denial of petitioner's request for "reasonably necessary" investigative and related services under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) to prove that he was entitled to federal habeas relief was a judicial decision subject to appellate review under the standard jurisdictional provisions; and that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit applied the wrong legal standard in affirming the district court's denial of petitioner's § 3599(f) request.
A case in which the Court decided that a federal habeas court reviewing an unexplained state court decision on the merits should “look through” that decision to the most recent related state court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning, and that the state may rebut that presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below.
A case in which the Court decided that challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule that defines the scope of United States waters must be filed in federal district courts.
A case in which the Court held that the Alien Tort Statute does not permit lawsuits against corporations.
A case in which Court held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C), which places a time limit on appeals, is not jurisdictional because it is a court-made rule rather than a statute.
A case in which the Court decided that (1) officers had probable cause to arrest a number of partygoers for unlawful entry under D.C. law under the totality of the circumstances, and (2) that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions were not clearly unlawful at the time.
A case in which the Court held that a guilty plea alone does not waive a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of his conviction on direct appeal.
A case in which the Court held that non-citizens who are subject to mandatory detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act are not entitled to periodic bond hearings. with the possibility of release if they are detained for longer than six months.
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable, but the Court held that the plaintiffs lacked judicial standing.
A case in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act requires that arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings be enforced.
A case in which the Court struck down the Immigration and Nationality Act’s “crime of violence” provision as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A case in which the Court struck down the Immigration and Nationality Act’s “crime of violence” provision as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A case in which the Court held that non-citizens who are subject to mandatory detention under the Immigration and Nationality Act are not entitled to periodic bond hearings. with the possibility of release if they are detained for longer than six months.