United States Supreme Court (14 summaries)
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org., Inc.
The Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 搂 102(a), does not provide protection to the annotations contained in Georgia鈥檚 official annotated code.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
Environmental Protection Agency permits are required only for pollutants directly discharged into navigable waters or when the functional equivalent of a direct discharge has occurred.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.
The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 搂1117(a), does not require findings of willful conduct to order an award of profits for trademark infringement.
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee
The application for stay presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is granted. The District Court鈥檚 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed to the extent it requires the State to count absentee ballots postmarked after April 7, 2020.
Area(s) of Law:- Election Law
Republic of Sudan v. Harrison
The Foreign State Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. 搂搂1604,1608(a)(3), requires that service through mailing upon on a foreign state must be sent directly to the foreign minister鈥檚 office in the minister鈥檚 home country.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Nielsen v. Preap
The mandatory detention provision of 18 U.S.C. 搂 1226(c) applies to an alien released from criminal custody even where the Department of Homeland Security does not take the alien into custody immediately after their release.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Shoop v. Hill
Whether the decision in Hill v. Anderson, 881 F. 3d 483 (2018) violated 28 U.S.C. 搂2254(d)(1) by applying case law which was not 鈥渃learly established鈥 at the time of state adjudication.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Stitt
Whether burglary of a non permanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as 鈥榖urglary鈥 under the Armed Career Criminal Act,18 U. S. C. 搂924(e)
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Currier v. Virginia
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the 14th Amendment does not bar the re-litigating of issues or introduction of evidence for a severed offense, where the Defendant requested severance of the trials and has been acquitted of the related charges.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States
Employee stock options are not taxable compensation for purposes of the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. 搂 3231(e)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach
Existence of probable cause for an arrest does not bar a claim under 42 USC 搂 1983 where an official policy of retaliation against the exercise of free speech is alleged.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Koons v. United States
Those whose sentences are 鈥渂ased on鈥 mandatory minimums and substantial assistance to the Government do not qualify for sentence reductions under revised 鈥淕uideline ranges.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.
The provision prohibiting state authorization of sports gambling schemes in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 U.S.C. 搂 3701, violates the anti-commandeering principle of the Constitution.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Oil States Energy Services v. Greene's Energy Group
Inter partes review of patent validity under 35 U.S.C. 搂搂 6, 316(c) does not trigger Article III requirements for a jury trial, nor does it violate the Seventh Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (18 summaries)
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru
Whether the Religion Clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment discrimination claims brought by an employee against his or her religious employer, where the employee carried out important religious functions.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Herrera v. United States
(1) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. 搂 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)? (2) If a conduct-based approach applies, whether a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery charge based on a stash-house robbery sting qualifies as a crime of violence?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
City of Pensacola, Florida v. Kondrat'yev
1. Whether plaintiffs have standing to sue under the Establishment Clause when their only alleged injury consists of the feelings of 鈥渙ffense鈥 produced by observing a passive religious display. 2. Whether, under Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), passive religious displays with a long historical pedigree must be torn down because of claims that they have the purpose or effect of endorsing religion
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue
Does it violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student- aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Jefferson v. United States
1. Whether an application for a search warrant to examine the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest must show more to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the cell phone than only an opinion that criminal gang members commonly use cell phones to communicate about their plans 2. Whether the 搂 924(c) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Opati v. Republic of Sudan
Whether, consistent with this Court's decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively; thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. 搂 l605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Ward v. United States
1. Does erroneous advice from trial counsel as stated herein constitute 鈥業neffective assistance of counsel鈥?鈥 2. Did the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals abuse its discretion by not granting Petitioner an evidentiary hearing for Petitioner鈥檚 allegation that Petitioner received erroneous advice from trial counsel on the plea phase of trial?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, D/B/A Argus Leader
1. Does the statutory term 鈥渃onfidential鈥 in FOIA Exemption 4 bear its ordinary meaning, thus requiring the Government to withhold all 鈥渃ommercial or financial information鈥 that is confidentially held and not publicly disseminated鈥攔egardless of whether a party establishes substantial competitive harm from disclosure鈥攚hich would resolve at least five circuit splits? 2. Alternatively, if the Court retains the substantial competitive-harm test, is that test satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor (as the First and Tenth Circuits have held), or must the party opposing disclosure establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share (as the Ninth and D.C. Circuits have held, and as the Eighth Circuit required here)?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Rehaif v. United States
Whether the 鈥渒nowingly鈥 provision of 搂 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a 搂 922(g) crime, as has been urged by then-Judge, now Justice Gorsuch, or whether it applies only to the possession element, as has been held by the courts
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Gray v. Wilke
Whether the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. 搂 502 to review an interpretive rule reflecting Department of Veterans Affairs definitive interpretation of its own regulation, even if VA chooses to promulgate that rule through its adjudication manual.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Return Mail, Inc v. United States Postal Service and the United States
Whether the government is a 鈥減erson鈥 who may petition to institute review proceedings under the America Invents Act, 112 P.L. 29, 125 Stat. 284.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
ALEX M. AZAR II v. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL.
Whether Section 1395hh(a)(2) requires HHS to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before providing instructions to a Medicare Administrative Contractor that makes initial determinations of payments due under Medicare, when those instructions rest on a non legally-binding interpretation of a relevant statutory provision.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Gilbert P. Hyatt
Whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into another State鈥檚 courts without its consent, should be overruled.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Dawson v. Steager
Whether Supreme Court precedent and the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity bar states from exempting groups of state retirees from state income tax while discriminating against similarly situated federal retirees based on the source of their retirement income.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
Washington Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.
Whether the Yakama Treaty of 1855 creates a right for tribal members to avoid state taxes on off-reservation commercial activities that make use of public highways.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Virginia Uranium Inc., v. Warren
Whether the AEA preempts a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the NRC?
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Stokeling v. United States
Whether a state robbery offense which requires a showing of overcoming "victim resistance" for conviction is a "violent felony" subject to Armed Career Criminal sentencing enhancements, if even slight force may satisfy the element of overcoming 鈥渧ictim resistance.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Kelly v. Preap
Whether the mandatory detention provision of 18 U.S.C. 搂 1226(c) applies to an alien released from criminal custody where the Department of Homeland Security does not take the alien into custody immediately after their release.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration