U.S. Supreme Court 2016 Term Arguments: Recent Episodes
Oyez
A case in which the Court determined that, for a naturalized American citizen to be stripped of her citizenship, the government has to prove that she obtained her citizenship illegally; if the underlying illegality is a false statement to government officials, the government must prove that the false statement influenced the citizenship process.
A case in which the Court determined that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 allows for commercial notice of a “biosimilar product” to be effective if given prior to approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but that the Act’s notice requirement is not enforceable with an injunction.
A case in which the Court determined that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) does not address the issue of whether state courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over railroads, and the Supreme Court’s precedent in Daimler AG v. Baumann controls a state court’s exercise of general jurisdiction.
A case in which the Court determined that, when the plaintiffs’ claims would have been exactly the same even if the defendant had no forum state contacts, there is no basis for specific jurisdiction because the case does not sufficiently arise out of or relate to the defendant’s forum activities.
A case in which the Court determined that ineffective assistance of appellate counsel does not overcome the procedural default of ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
A case in which the Court determined that Ake v. Oklahoma clearly established that a state must provide an indigent defendant with access to an expert witness who is sufficiently available to the defense and independent of the prosecution to effectively conduct an examination and assist in the preparation of a defense.
A case in which the Court determined that the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free exercise of religion.
A case in which the Court determined that, in the context of the violation of a right to a public trial during jury selection, when the structural error was first raised via an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the defendant must demonstrate that he suffered prejudice in order to secure a new trial.
A case in which the Court determined that a party that purchases a debt and attempts to collect the debt for its own account is not a “debt collector” subject to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).
A case in which the Court held that Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disgorgement functions as a penalty, and therefore is subject to the five-year statute of limitations.Commission seeking “disgorgement,” or payment, of illegally obtained funds.
A case in which the Court determined that the filing of a putative class action lawsuit does not satisfy the three-year time limit in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the individual claims of other class members.
A case in which the Court determined that a Merit Systems Protection Board decision to dismiss a case with mixed claims on jurisdictional grounds is subject to judicial review in district court.
A case in which the Court determined that an intervenor to a lawsuit must meet the requirements of Article III standing if the intervenor wishes to pursue relief that was not already requested by the plaintiff.
A case in which the Court determined that the precedent of Brady v. Maryland does not require that the convictions in this case be overturned because the withheld evidence in question is not material under the standard established in Brady.
A case in which the Court determined that the federal forfeiture statute does not require joint and several liability among co-conspirators for any reasonably foreseeable proceeds of conspiracy.
A case in which the Court determined that, when a defendant claims that his plea was caused by ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant can demonstrate that he was prejudiced by showing a reasonable probability that, but for his counsel’s errors, he would have gone to trial rather than accepting a plea.
A case in which the Court held that the subsection of the general venue statute that allows a corporation to reside in many jurisdictions for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction does not apply to the patent venue statute.
A case in which the Court determined that the “church plan” exemption of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) applies to plans that are maintained by a qualifying church-affiliated organization, even if that organization did not originally establish the plan.
A case in which the Court determined that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s provocation rule has no basis in the Fourth Amendment, and that the lower court erroneously conflated multiple Fourth Amendment violation claims.
A case in which the Court determined that the Hague Service Convention does not prohibit service of process by mail.
A case in which the Court determined that a patentee’s decision to sell an item exhausts all of its patent rights in that item, even if the e patentee purports to impose post-sale restrictions, and regardless of whether the sale occurs domestically or internationally.
A case in which the Court determined that the federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.
A case in which the Court determined that, in a regulatory takings case, two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels should be combined for takings analysis purposes.
A case in which the Court determined that the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act prevents state courts from treating the waived portion of military retirement pay as a divisible community asset for the purpose of divorce proceedings.
A case in which the Court determined that the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (FEHBA) preempts state laws that prohibit insurance companies from claiming the proceeds of personal injury settlements pursuant to their contracts, and the express preemption clause of the FEHBA does not violate the Supremacy Clause.
A case in which the Court determined that 18 U.S.C. §924(c) does not prevent a sentencing court from using its discretion to consider the other mandatory minimum sentences a defendant might be facing when calculating an overall appropriate sentence.
A case in which the Court determined that the North Carolina law prohibiting registered sex offenders from accessing various websites, where minors are known to be active and have accounts, regardless of whether or not the sex offender directly interacted with a minor violates the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court determined that the crime of “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor” as defined by California law cannot be categorically considered the aggravated felony of “sexual abuse of a minor” for the purpose of mandatory removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
A case in which the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts Kentucky state-law precedent that requires a clear statement in the power of attorney agreement in order to grant an attorney-in-fact the power to bind her principal to an arbitration agreement.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a district court’s decision to enforce an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subpoena should be reviewed “de novo,” or without deference to the lower court’s determination.
A case in which the Court determined that qualified immunity may not be granted based on facts that were unknown to the officer at the time of the incident, and that a court should consider whether an implied right of action is appropriate under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents before addressing sensitive Fourth Amendment questions.
A case in which the Court determined that, in suits against government officials for personally violating the Constitution, “context” should be defined narrowly for the purpose of determining whether a claim arose in a “new context,” and the government officials in this case are entitled to qualified immunity.
A case in which the Court determined that the Disparagement Clause prohibits trademarks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group and violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court determined that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) does not prevent a creditor from filing a proof of claim on an unpaid debt in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding even after the statute of limitations on that debt has run.
A case in which the Court determined that, in order to provide children with disabilities a free and appropriate public education as guaranteed by the IDEA, school districts must offer children an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) that is reasonably calculated to enable each child to make progress appropriate for that child’s circumstances.
A case in which the court held that, when a federal court sanctions bad-faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side’s legal fees, the award is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely due to the misconduct.
A case in which the Court decided that the New York General Business Law’s was not unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A case in which the Court determined that tribal sovereign immunity is not implicated in a suit against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, and an indemnification provision cannot extend tribal sovereign immunity to conduct that it would not otherwise cover.
A case in which the Court decided that the Colorado Exoneration Act, which requires exonerated persons to “prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that they were ‘actually innocent’” in order to refund their money, does not comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
A case in which the Court determined that bankruptcy court cannot authorize a distribution of settlement proceeds in a manner that does not comply with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority distribution scheme.
A case in which the Court held that supplying a single component of a multi-component invention from the United States for sale abroad does not expose the manufacturer to liability for infringement based on worldwide sales.
A case in which the Court determined that race can be shown to be the predominant factor in redistricting even when traditional principles are respected, and that district courts must engage in a holistic analysis.
A case in which the Court determined that the district court did not error in determining that North Carolina’s new districting plan constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and neither claim nor issue preclusion based on the state court case dictate the outcome of this case.
A case in which the Court determined that the use of outdated medical standards regarding intellectual disability to determine whether a person is exempt from execution violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment as well as earlier precedent.
A case in which the Court held that its holding in Johnson v. US regarding the unconstitutionality of the residual clause in the Armed Criminal Career Act does not apply retroactively to identical language in the Sentencing Guidelines.
A case in which the Court held that statutory distinction between the physical presence requirements for transferral of derivative citizenship for unwed citizen mothers and unwed citizen fathers of foreign-born children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and it is up to Congress, rather than the courts, to create a uniform solution that does not disadvantage any person on the basis of gender.
A case in which the Court determined that the “aggrieved persons” language of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) does not impose a more narrow standing standard than Article III does and allows a city to sue, but the proximate cause standard requires the plaintiffs to show more than the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen the harm.
A case in which the Court determined that language in the federal charter of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) that authorizes the organization to sue and be sued does not mean that federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over any case in which Fannie Mae is a plaintiff or defendant, and the Supreme Court’s precedent in American National Red Cross v. S.G. doe not require a different result.
A case in which the Court determined that the limitations on nominees to vacant positions serving in an acting capacity under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act apply equally to first assistants who take on the position and to those who are selected by the President from within the same agency or from another agency.
A case in which the Court determined that the “frivolous or insubstantial” standard is not consistent with the text and purpose of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)
A case in which the Court determined that a violation of the False Claims Act’s seal requirement does not mandate dismissal of the complaint.
A case in which the Court determined that an unreasonable delay in litigation cannot bar claims for patent infringement that are brought within the six-year statutory period of limitations.
A case in which the Court determined that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s requirement that plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies before suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act only applies to individuals seeking relief for the denial of a free and appropriate public education.
A case in which the Court determined that the test for deciding whether a feature of a “useful article” is copyrightable under the Copyright Act is whether the feature can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional artwork that is separable from the useful article and if it would be a protectable pictorial, graphical, or sculptural work on its own.
A case in which the Court determined that, for the purpose of calculating damages in a patent infringement action, the infringing “article of manufacture” may be defined as either an end product sold to a consumer or as a component of that product.
A case in which the Court held that appellate courts do not have jurisdiction over an appeal of a restitution award when the judgment that awarded restitution was entered after the notice of appeal was filed.
A case in which the Court held that the no-impeachment rule may not bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
A case in which the Court held that evidence of a close family relationship sufficient is to sustain a conviction for insider trading.
A case in which the Court held that an individual’s right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure continues throughout the legal process of a criminal case.
A case in which the Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit applied an unduly burdensome standard of review on a Certificate of Appealability (COA) for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when it denied the COA for failing to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances.
A case in which the Court decided that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial when a jury returns an inconsistent verdict of conviction and acquittal and the convictions are later vacated for a completely separate legal error.
A case in which the Court determined that, to convict a defendant of defrauding a financial institution under the Bank Fraud Act of 1984, the government does not need to prove that the target of the deception was a bank.