January 3 summaries
Babcock v. Kijakazi
Civil-service pensions provided for work as a dual-status military technician do not qualify for exclusion from Social Security benefit calculations under 42 USC 搂 415(a)(7)(A)(III).
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Hemphill v. New York
Admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence against a criminal defendant is not excused by the fact that the defendant made such evidence relevant through their arguments.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Hughes v. Northwestern Univ.
Plaintiffs 鈥渕ay allege that a fiduciary breached the duty of prudence by failing to properly monitor investments and remove imprudent ones.鈥 Tibble v. Edison Int鈥檒, 575 U. S. 523, 530 (2015).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
February 1 summary
Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P.
The safe harbor for copyright applications provided by 17 U.S.C. 搂411(b) excuses mistakes of fact and law.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
March 8 summaries
Cameron v. EMW Women鈥檚 Surgical Center, P. S. C.
When deciding the timeliness of a third party鈥檚 motion to intervene, the most important consideration for courts is whether the party sought to intervene 鈥渁s soon as it became clear鈥 that its interests 鈥渨ould no longer be protected鈥 by the parties in the case. United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald, 432 U. S. 385, 394 (1977).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
United States v. Zubaydah
The state secrets privilege bars the disclosure of information upon the Government鈥檚 showing that disclosure would have a 鈥渞easonable probability鈥 to harm national security. United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 6鈥7, 11 (1953).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
FBI v. Fazaga
The District Court dismissed Respondent's claims but the Ninth Circuit reversed saying 搂1806(f) displaced the state secrets privilege. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the holding saying 搂1806(f) does not have that effect.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Houston Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Wilson
A plaintiff pursuing a claim for First Amendment retaliation must show that the government took an adverse action in response to speech it would not have taken absent a retaliatory motive.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Houston Community College System v. Wilson
鈥淚n this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers鈥攁nd to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Ramirez v. Collier
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 states that the state cannot impose substantial burden on the exercise of religion to people in state institutions unless the government proves the burden 鈥(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.鈥 2 U. S. C. 搂2000cc鈥1(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
SAIF v. Ward
Under former ORS 656.005(30) (2019), a 鈥渨orker鈥 is 鈥渁ny person, including a minor whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, who engages to furnish services for a renumeration, subject to the direction and control of an employer.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Badgerow v. Walters
Rules and maxims of statutory interpretation dictate that when congress omits language from one section of the statute while including it elsewhere the Court must find that choice as intentional.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
April 7 summaries
Hemphill v. New York
Whether, or under what circumstances, a criminal defendant who opens the door to responsive evidence also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Boechler v. Commissioner
The thirty-day limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process determination pursuant to 26 U. S. C. 搂 6330(d)(1) is non jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Brown v. Davenport
A petitioner must satisfy the burdens for both the Brecht and the AEDPA tests in order to qualify for habeas relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation
28 U. S. C. 搂 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 鈥渄raw [] neutral, location-based lines."
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
United States v. Madero
Congress does not have to extend Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to residents of Puerto Rico. 42 U. S. C. 搂1382c(a)(1)(B)(i).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller
Emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions of Spending Clause antidiscrimination statutes.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
May 5 summaries
Shurtleff v. Boston
When a government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude speech based on 鈥渞eligious viewpoint鈥; doing so 鈥渃onstitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.鈥 Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 112 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Federal Election Comm鈥檔 v. Ted Cruz
搂 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BRCA) limits political speech, abridging the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Patel v. Garland
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under 8 U. S. C. 搂1255 and the other provisions enumerated in 8 U. S. C. 搂1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
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.] 搂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
June 32 summaries
Gallardo v. Marstiller
States are permitted to 鈥渟eek reimbursement from settlement payments allocated for future medical care鈥 under 搂1396k(a)(1)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative 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.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Bankruptcy Law
Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon
鈥淸A]ny class of workers directly involved in transporting goods across state or international borders falls within [the Federal Arbitration Act] 搂1鈥檚 exemption.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Egbert v. Boule
鈥淸I]n all but the most unusual circumstances, prescribing a cause of action is a job for Congress, not the courts鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Denezpi v. United States
鈥淒ual-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 鈥 even if they have identical elements and could not be separately prosecuted if enacted by a single sovereign.鈥 Gamble v. United States, 587 U.S. ____, ____ (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Garland v. Gonzalez
District Courts do not have jurisdiction to grant class-wide injunctive relief under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 8 U.S.C. 搂1252(f)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez
8 U.S.C. 搂1231(a)(6) does not require the Government to offer noncitizens detained for more than six months bond hearings in which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Kemp v. United States
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motions alleging a legal error by a judge are subject to the 1-year limitation.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.
A party lacking governmental involvement does not constitute a 鈥渇oreign or international tribunal鈥 under 28 U.S.C. 搂1782.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra
"[U]nless HHS conducts a survey of hospitals鈥 acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates by hospital group."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
George v. McDonough
A change in law does not constitute 鈥渃lear and unmistakable error鈥 of the sort that will allow collateral relief from a final Veterans Affairs benefit decision under 38 U.S.C. 搂 7111.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Golan v. Saada
The court of appeal imposed 鈥渁n atextual, categorical requirement that courts consider all possible ameliorative measures鈥 on a discretionary decision, inconsistent with the treaty鈥檚 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
Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v. Texas
The Restoration Act does not turn 鈥渟tate gaming laws . . . [into] . . . surrogate federal law on tribal lands.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Tribal Law
Carson v. Makin
Programs that prohibit private beneficiaries from using public funds at religious entities violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Marietta Mem'l Hosp. Emp. Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.
When health care plan terms are applied uniformly to all plan participants, the plan does not violate the Medicare Secondary Payer statute because it does not 鈥渄ifferentiate in the benefits it provides鈥 or takes into account Medicare eligibility.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Shoop v. Twyford
"A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not 'necessary or appropriate in aid of' a federal court鈥檚 adjudication of a habeas corpus action, 28 U.S.C. 搂1651(a), when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief."
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
U.S. v. Taylor
An attempted, Hobbs Act robbery, does not qualify as a crime of violence because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened the use of force.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Washington
40 U.S.C 搂3172鈥檚 federal waiver of immunity does not 鈥渃learly and unambiguously鈥 authorize a state to enact a discriminatory law that facially singles out the Federal Government for unfavorable treatment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Berger v. N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP
North Carolina's legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in litigation regarding voter I.D. laws because they represent a state's interest which is not otherwise being represented.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Nance v. Ward
Prisoners may maintain method-of-execution challenges under 42 U.S.C. 搂 1983, even if their proposed alternative method is not authorized by state law.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen
The Second Amendment prohibits states from preventing law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm in public because they had not demonstrated a need for self-defense.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
States may not invoke sovereign immunity as a legal defense to USERRA suits.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Vega v. Tekoh
A Miranda violation is not itself a Fifth Amendment violation, and the use of an "un-Mirandized" statement does not provide a valid basis for a 42 U.S.C. 搂 1983 claim.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, for Valley Hospital Medical Center
鈥淓ntitled to benefits鈥 in 42 U.S.C. 搂 1395ww(d)(5)(F)(vi)(I) is to be read as meeting the statutory criteria expressed in 搂搂 426(a)鈥(b), not actually having used Medicare funds for treatment.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dobbs v. Jackson Women鈥檚 Health Org.
鈥淭he 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.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Concepcion v. United States
The First Step Act allows a district court to consider intervening changes of law or fact when exercising their discretion to modify a sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
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. 搂 841鈥檚 鈥渒nowingly or intentionally鈥 mens rea applies to the statute鈥檚 鈥渆xcept as authorized鈥 clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Biden v. Texas
鈥淸T]he Government鈥檚 rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda did constitute final agency action.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
West Virginia v. EPA
Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act should be narrowly construed to regulate individual power plants. The CPP's scheme to create generation shifting for the nation's power sector as a whole is not within its authority under Section 111(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law