In Glacier Northwest v. Teamsters, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the National Labor Relations Act preempts Glacier's state tort law claims that allege the Teamsters intentionally destroyed the company's concrete trucks when the truckers did not complete their deliveries in transit.  The Court held that these claims were not preempted by federal law, reasoning that it is well-established that the NLRA does not protect striking workers who fail to take reasonable precautions to protect against property damage. Read by Jake Leahy. 

In Slack Technologies v. Pirani the Court held that Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 requires the plaintiff to prove that they purchased securities that were registered under a materially misleading registration statement. The Court rejected the argument that the term "such security" could include securities that were not registered under an allegedly misleading registration statement. Read by Jeff Barnum. 

Supreme Court's decision is here. 

The False Claims Act allows for private citizens to bring a cause of action on behalf of the United Sates, against a person who "knowingly" submits a "false claim" to a federal program. The defendant can meet the knowledge requirement by, 1.) actual knowledge that the reported prices were not "usual and customary," 2.) being aware of a substantial risk that the retail prices were not usual and customary, or 3.) awareness of a substantial and unjustifiable risk but the defendant decided to submit the claim regardless. The Court adopted a subjective standard, even if an objective test would not meet the same requirement. 

In Dupree v. Younger, the Supreme Court addressed whether a post-trial motion of a purely legal issue that was resolved at summary judgment, requires a post-trial motion to be preserved on appeal. Kevin Younger sued Neil Dupree, who was a correctional officer under Section 1983. Dupree moved for summary judgment alleging that Younger had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The district court denied the motion. After Younger prevailed at trial by obtaining $700,000 in damages, Dupree appealed alleging the district court improperly dismissed the suit. Under Fourth Circuit precedent, that court ruled against Younger reasoning that he was required to file a Rule 50 post-trial motion to preserve the issue on appeal. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that pure questions of law resolved in summary judgment do not require a post-trial motion to preserve the issue for appeal. The Court writes in the syllabus: "And it makes sense: Factual development at trial will not change the district court’s pretrial answer to a purely legal question, so a post-trial motion requirement would amount to an empty exercise." Read by Jake Leahy. 

In Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court examines the scope the terms "waters" under the Clean Water Act. The EPA ordered the Sackets, who purchased property in Idaho, to restore the property after the family had backfilled it with dirt. The EPA claimed that putting dirt on their property violated the Clean Water Act, and threatened the family with $40,000 in penalties daily. 

The Sacketts claimed that the Clean Water Act did not apply as "waters of the United states" refers only to permanent bodies of water, such as streams, rivers, lakes, and adjacent wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to those bodies of water.  The EPA asked the Court for a broader interpretation of the statute. The Court ruled against the EPA, reasoning that there must be a clear connection between wetlands and traditionally navigable waters to obtain jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Read by guest host Jeff Barnum. 

In Tyler v. Hennepin County, Chief Justice Roberts writes for the majority, reversing the Eighth Circuit. The District Court and Circuit Court had rejected a taxpayer's claim that Hennepin County keeping the $25,000 surplus after a tax sale violated both the Takings Clause under the Fifth Amendment and the prohibition on excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment. The Court reversed, finding that the state is not entitled to recover the surplus after a property is sold after the owner's failure to pay real estate taxes. 

The Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, reasoning that the Court of Appeals must reverse the administrative agency if it reaches the same outcome for a different reason. Once an administrative agency has made an error of law, the decision must be remanded back to the administrative agency. Per Curiam. Read by Jake Leahy.

In Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith et al., the Supreme Court ruled that the commercial licensing of a derivative artwork by Andy Warhol, based on a copyrighted photograph taken by Lynn Goldsmith, did not qualify as fair use. The case involved the licensing of Warhol's "Orange Prince" image. This well-known image includes a silkscreen portrait of musician Prince, which was derived from Goldsmith's photograph. The Court found that despite adding new expression, meaning, or message to the photograph, the purpose and character of the use were not sufficiently distinct from the original work. Held: the “purpose and character” of the Warhol' use of Goldsmith’s original photograph in commercially licensing Orange Prince to Condé Nast does not favor Warhol's fair use defense to copyright infringement. Justice Sotomayor delivered the Opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting Opinion, which Chief Justice Roberts joined.  Read by guest host Jeff Barnum. 

In Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. FLRA, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS) grants jurisdiction to the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) over labor disputes involving state National Guards when they hire and supervise dual-status technicians in their civilian roles. These technicians are both employed by the Ohio National Guard, as well as the Army and the Air Force.  The Court's decision was based on three main reasons,  1.) statutory terms, 2.) the authority granted to the Ohio Adjutant General, and 3.) the historical precedent of federal agency-employee relations. Justice Thomas delivered the Opinion of the Court (7-2), Justice Alito filed a dissent, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Read by guest host Jeff Barnum. 

On the same day, the Court released its decision in Twitter v. Taamneh. The Court largely disposed of the claims in Twitter, stating that Taamneh had failed to state a claim under the federal statute. Here, the Court in its per curiam opinion, writes that it need not consider the veracity of the Section 230 claims because Twitter's reasoning requires disposal of the claims here. Read by Jake Leahy.

The patent requires certain particularity, such that any person skilled in the craft would be able to manufacture, make, construct, or use the invention. The Court held that Amgen's patent failed to provide the detail required to protect its interest, in part, because the patent applies to a wide range of antibodies and requires a certain level of trial/error for a skilled person to replicate it. A pharmaceutical patent case. Gorsuch delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. Read by Jake Leahy. Contact us at scotusdecisions@gmail.com.

Taamneah brought suit against social media companies, alleging that the companies were "aiding and abetting" ISIS by providing a platform and recommendations to the companies. HELD: The social media companies did not knowingly aid and abet ISIS, and therefore, no claim can be brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act. 

Chief Justice Roberts writes for the majority in this case: "As an old joke goes: 'I believe we should all pay taxes with a smile. I tried but they wanted cash.'"

The IRS is authorized by statute to issue a summons to third parties to aid in the "collection" of an assessment against a taxpayer. There are certain notice requirements and exceptions to the requirements as they pertain to summonses. The question presented is whether the statute requires notice when a summons is issued to a third-party, or if notice is only required to the taxpayer in an account where the taxpayer holds a beneficial interest. HELD: The exception to the notice requirement in §7609(c)(2)(D)(i) does not only apply if the delinquent taxpayer has a legal interest in summons issued by the IRS. 

In National Pork Producers v. Ross, the Supreme Court reviewed whether California's Proposition 12 regulatory requirements relating to conditions for in-state pork sales unconstitutionally interfered with out-of-state businesses in violation of the dormant commerce clause. 

From Justice Gorsuch's majority opinion: "Assuredly, under this Court’s dormant Commerce Clause decisions, no State may use its laws to discriminate purposefully against out-of-state economic interests. But the pork producers do not suggest that California’s law offends this principle. Instead, they invite us to fashion two new and more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders. We decline that invitation. While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list."

Read by guest host Ryan Barnum. 

"The question presented is whether the statute categorically abrogates (legalspeak for eliminates) any sovereign immunity the board enjoys from legal claims. We hold it does not. Under long-settled law, Congress must use unmistakable language to abrogate sovereign immunity. Nothing in the statute creating the board meets that high bar." (First paragraph of Justice Kagan's majority opinion). 

The Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) was enacted in 2016 to address Puerto Rico's financial crisis, established the Board as an entity within the territorial government of Puerto Rico. The Court held that nothing in PROMESA explicitly abrogates the Board's immunity, and Congress must clearly state if its intent to do so. 

The Court emphasized that PROMESA does not provide for suits against the Board or Puerto Rico, nor does it create a cause of action. Although certain provisions in PROMESA reference judicial review and declaratory relief, they do not indicate a general abrogation of the Board's immunity. The Court concluded that the statutory language and the Board's protections are consistent with the retention of sovereign immunity. 

Read by Jake A. Leahy. Feel free to shoot the podcast an email at scotusdecisions@gmail.com.

In Percoco v. United States, the Supreme Court considered whether a private citizen with influence over government decision-making can be convicted for wire fraud on the theory that he or she deprived the public of its “intangible right of honest services.” Joseph Percoco, former Executive Deputy Secretary to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, was charged with conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud. Percoco accepted payments while on hiatus from government service to assist a real-estate development company (while he was running Governor Cuomo's re-election campaign for eight months). 

The trial court instructed the jury based on the Second Circuit's 1982 decision in Margiotta, which held that a private person can commit honest-services fraud if they dominate and control government decisions. The Supreme Court ruled that instructing the jury based on Margiotta was an error, stating that the Margiotta theory was overly vague and lacked sufficient clarity. Reversed and remanded. Read by Jake A. Leahy. 

In Ciminelli v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Circuit's right-to-control theory of wire fraud cannot be used as the basis for a conviction under federal fraud statutes. Louis Ciminelli was convicted of federal wire fraud for his involvement in a scheme to rig the bid process for state-funded development projects under Governor Andrew Cuomo. The Government relied on the right-to-control theory, which establishes wire fraud by depriving a victim of potentially valuable economic information. The conviction turned on whether the Second Circuit's established "righto-to-control" theory is sufficient to establish federal wire fraud. The Supreme Court held that the right to valuable economic information is not a traditional property interest and therefore cannot form the basis for a wire fraud conviction under the relevant statutes. Read by Jake A. Leahy. 

In Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, the Supreme Court reviewed two questions. First, whether §1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional; and second, whether a non-citizen is required to request reconsideration of an adverse board action to fully exhaust administrative remedies under the law.

HELD: Santos-Zacaria is correct and the Fifth Circuit was incorrect to find that §1252(d)(1) is jurisdictional. The statute in question is not jurisdictional, as Congress did not clearly demonstrate that it intended to make the statute jurisdictional. Second, the law does not require non-citizens to request discretionary forms of review, such as asking a Board to reconsider its ruling, because the law only requires the exhaustion of remedies as "right," while discretionary actions involve the discretion of the administrative agencies. Vacated in part and remanded.

Read the entire opinion here.

Read by Jake A. Leahy. 

Section 363(m) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision. Courts should not construe a statute to be jurisdictional unless clearly stated. A jurisdictional provisions puts a limit on the jurisdiction of federal courts. Guest recorded by Jeff Barnum. 

Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. (Halkbank) vs. the United States involves the criminal prosecution against Halkbank for evading American economic sanctions against Iran.  Halkbank claims immunity, as an instrumentality of a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA). The Supreme Court held that the District Court has jurisdiction over this criminal prosecution of Halkbank, that the FSIA's comprehensive scheme governing claims of immunity in civil actions against foreign states, and their instrumentalities does not cover criminal cases. The Court concluded that the FSIA's provisions extend only to the civil context. Guest recorded by Jeff Barnum. 

In Wilkins v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute between property owners in rural Montana and the government regarding a road easement. The government claimed that the easement included public access, while the property owners disagreed. The property owners sued the government under the Quiet Title Act, but the government argued that their claim was barred by a 12-year time limit in the Act. The Court held that the time limit was a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule and not a jurisdictional bar. It concluded that the Act's text and context did not indicate a clear statement of jurisdictional consequences. The Court also determined that previous Supreme Court decisions did not definitively interpret the relevant statute as jurisdictional. Justice Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion, joined by Justices Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Syllabus read by guest reader Jeff Barnum. 

Feel free to contact the show with any feedback you have to scotusdecisions@gmail.com.

New York and New Jersey entered into a compact in 1953 to establish the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor to conduct regulatory and law enforcement activities at the Port, and in 2018, New Jersey sought to withdraw from the Compact, resulting in New York filing a bill of complaint in this Court. HELD: Despite New York's opposition, New Jersey is permitted to withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact. Recorded by Jeff Barnum. 

Michelle Cochran and Axon Enterprise each filed a federal district court lawsuit, challenging the constitutionality of the agency proceedings against them in separate enforcement actions initiated in the SEC and the FTC. Both suits were initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the Fifth Circuit disagreed as to the SEC question, finding that Cochran's claim would not receive "meaningful judicial review" in a court of appeals, was "wholly collateral to the Exchange Act's statutory-review scheme," and fell "outside the SEC's expertise." The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of Axon's constitutional challenges to the FTC proceeding. HELD: District court's continue to have jurisdiction over federal questions arising from constitutional challenges, notwisthstanding the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act. 

Miguel Luna Perez, a deaf student who attended schools in Michigan's Sturgis Public School District, was denied graduation. his family filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Education claiming that the district failed to provide him with a free and appropriate public education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parties reached a settlement, and Perez then sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), seeking compensatory damages, but the district court dismissed the suit, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed; based on IDEA's requirement that plaintiffs exhaust administrative procedures before seeking relief that is also available under IDEA. HELD: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not require Perez to exhaust administrative remedies before filing an action, because IDEA does not provide for compensatory damages. 

The Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler's Checks Act requires that abandoned property from a "money order . . . or other similar written instrument," be returned to the state where the property was purchased. This rule is different from the common law, which requires that unclaimed property be returned to the state of incorporation, not the state of purchase. The Supreme Court held that Agent Checks and Teller's Checks, offered by MoneyGram, were sufficiently similar to a money order to be governed by the statutory framework. As a result, these products offered by MoneyGram should be returned to the state of purchase when unclaimed, rather than the state of incorporation (most often, Delaware). Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the unanimous court (although the Court was not unanimous for a portion of the decision, there is no dissent regarding that portion).

Delaware v. Pennsylvania

In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the Supreme Court held that the discharge exceptions under Section 523(a)(2)(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code apply to an individual debtor, regardless of said debtor's culpability in the fraud. Recorded by Jake Leahy.

Bartenwerfer v. Buckley

Bittner, was required to file reports under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). In 2004, Congress amended the law to create a penalty for the non-willful failure to file certain reports pertaining to foreign bank accounts. After filing reports, Bittner was assessed penalties for over fifty accounts that he had failed to report over several years. The Secretary of the Treasury assessed a penalty for his non-willful failure to file in the amount of $10,000 per account per year, while Bittner claimed the amount should be $10,000 per annual report. Bittner was assessed a penalty of $2.7 million. The Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the United States. Bittner appealed. Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion of the court reversing the Fifth Circuit, finding in favor of Bittner. Recorded by Jake Leahy.
Bittner v. United States

In Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc., et al. v. Hewitt, the Supreme Court ruled that an employee paid a daily rate does not qualify for an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements, unless they satisfy the conditions set out in Section 541.604(b). Michael Hewitt, a former employee of Helix, sued his employer claiming overtime pay under FLSA, as he worked 84 hours a week while on the vessel, but Helix paid him a daily-rate basis with no overtime compensation. The Court concluded that Hewitt was not paid on a salary basis as defined in Section 602(a), and thus was not an executive exempt from FLSA's overtime pay guarantee.

Cruz v. Arizona is a case heard by the US Supreme Court that questioned whether the Arizona Supreme Court's ruling was an adequate ground to preclude review of a federal question. The petitioner, John Montenegro Cruz, was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death, and argued that under Simmons v. South Carolina, he should have been allowed to inform the jury that a life sentence in Arizona would be without parole. Cruz sought to raise the Simmons issue again in a state post-conviction petition under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g). The Arizona Supreme Court denied relief after concluding that Lynch was not "a significant change in the law". The US Supreme Court held that the Arizona Supreme Court's holding that Lynch was not a significant change in the law is an exceptional case where a state-court judgment rests on such a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of a state-court procedural rule that the decision is not adequate to foreclose review of the federal claim.

Rodney Reed was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death in Texas. He filed a motion under Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law, requesting DNA testing on certain evidence, which he believed would help identify the true perpetrator. The state trial court denied Reed's motion, citing an inadequate chain of custody for the evidence he sought to test. Reed then sued in federal court, arguing that Texas's post-conviction DNA testing law violated procedural due process. The Fifth Circuit dismissed Reed's claim as time-barred, but the Supreme Court held that the statute of limitations for a procedural due process claim begins to run when the state litigation ends, in this case when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reed's motion for rehearing. The Court ultimately reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.

In Arellano v. McDonough, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Section 5110(b)(1) of the Veterans' Benefits Act is not subject to equitable tolling. The case involves the effective date of an award of disability compensation to a veteran of the United States military. Adolfo Arellano applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for disability compensation based on his psychiatric disorders approximately 30 years after his honorable discharge from the Navy. Arellano argued that his award's effective date should be governed by an exception in § 5110(b)(1), which makes the effective date the day following the date of the veteran's discharge or release if application is received within one year of such date. However, the Supreme Court held that equitably tolling the provision would depart from the terms that Congress "specifically provided."

The Dual sovereignty exception to Double jeopardy is not implicated by the sovereignty of the court personnel, but by the sovereignty of the AUTHORITY under which that court operates. 

§1782 does not authorize district courts to demand discovery for international arbitration. 

Not really sure.

Texas’ bingo laws are regulatory in nature, therefore it may not prevent the Tribe from offering bingo on reservation lands.

Not allowed to discriminate based solely on religion.

The decision below did not meet the “clear and unmistakable error”

Prisoner here can’t use the all writs act to help him develop evidence that may not be admissible.

“Crime of violence” requires the underlying crime supporting it to require the government to prove “violence” beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court declines to extend §1983 suits to violations of prophylactic rules protecting constitutional rights.

Prisoners can still challenge the death penalty using an (as yet not state authorized) substitute method.

Here the legislature can be it’s own litigational party.

“Entitled” here does not mean “to receive“

Knowingly/Intentionally applies to the “authorized” exception of this statute.

The logic of the commerce clause extends to Congress’ power to raise an army and navy. 

Can be prosecuted by states.

Generation shifting of powerplant types is a “major question” that the legislature did not clearly designate to the EPA.

Here a coach is allowed to pray at midfield after games.

Striking down New York’s restrictions on concealed carry licensing.

Here Emotional distress damages are not allowed.

Here A flag at city hall is not government speech.

This particular subsection is toll-able

Roe and Casey are overruled.

In this case the AEDPA and Brect must BOTH be followed.

My limited understanding: 
Sovereign entities sued under FSIA (but without a separate cause of action implicating federal jurisdiction) are subject to the choice of law provision of the courts which would otherwise be the lawsuit’s venue.

Eg. Where you would have had to bring the underlying, non-FSIA/non-federal, Lawsuit where you found the law.

The requirement to read a sign to determine it’s compliance, by reference to the sign’s location, with a city ordinance banning off premises advertising, does not infringe 1a freedom of speech.

Sections 9 and 10 do not contain “look through” provisions 

Lawsuit may proceed.

Texas’s rule against pastor laying hands on and praying with a prisoner in his final moments during a state execution is a violation of the religious land use and institutionalized persons act of 2000.

Free speech not implicated by deliberative body censure.

The Wisc Supreme Court did not properly consider the race based changes to the voting map.

where where one short duration crime ends and another begins nearly simultaneously the crimes are not separate “occasions” for ACCA purposes.

This is not about abortion, it’s about procedure.

State Secrets wins.

§411(a)’s safeharbor protects unknowing errors of law AND fact.

The trial court violated the Petitioner’s 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses against him.

The Court stays a stay of a vaccine mandate for Medicare and Medicaid facility employees.

For purposes here Only Babcock’s National Guard service payments are payments for service “as a member of a uniformed service” not his technicians pay.

Granting a stay of OSHA’s vaccine mandate.

Petitioners may pursue a pre enforcement challenge against certain of the named defendants, but not others (rejecting some on standing, and some on sovereign immunity).

equitable apportionment and multi state Aquifers

Here, officers are entitled to QI.

This case grants Officer Rivas-Villegas QI.

The lower court ruled the department of health and human services lacked the authority to continue the eviction moratorium after Congress did not extend it. The lower court, however, stayed enforcement of that order, The Supreme Court, in this case, lifted the stay which ends the eviction moratorium.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-440_9ol1.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-897_c07d.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-1212_3204.pdf

The issue was improperly considered below.

Article III Standing.

ANCs are tribes in regards to the CARES Act.

Affordable Care Act is upheld.

Held: The refusal of Philadelphia to contract with CSS for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amend- ment.

-CJ Roberts

Reckless crimes do not count towards ACCA “violent felony” strikes.

LPR Status in this case requires a lawful entry.

Tribal law enforcement officers may detain, search, and transport non tribal members suspected of criminal activity on tribal lands.

Ramos is not applied retroactively on collateral review.

Police can not use the community caretaking exception to the 4th Amendment’s warrant requirement to enter a home after a completed mental welfare check.

Back recording after a break for Finals.

Wright was not in custody pursuant to the judgement of a state court, where he had served his state sentence and was convicted in a federal court for violating the sex offender registry requirement.

Reversing the 9th Cir denial of injunctive relief. 

Google’s use of a small portion of the Java SE API is “fair use”.

Florida could not carry it’s burden of proof for an adjustment/equitable apportionment.

This action is not arbitrary and capricious.

Defining facebook’s login notification system as outside the definition provided in the TCPA.

No ineffective assistance of counsel in this case.

Personal Jurisdiction  (Specific) upheld.

For 4th amendment purposes, Officers seized a woman when they shot her twice as she fled, even though she got away.

Nominal damages can satisfy the damages requirement for ART. III standing, for a completed constitutional violation of rights.

Pereida did not carry his burden to prove he had not been convicted of certain crimes.

FOIA does not cover “drafts of draft biological opinions.“ because (in part) they are deliberative documents, and thus exempt.

Opinion has a remand in the footnotes that the syllabus does not seem to mention.

Judiciary has power to review, but only for abuse of discretion. 

No help with recovering art stolen by Nazis from German Jews.

During bankruptcy proceedings, The city does not have to return impounded vehicles held for non payment of fines.

Case dismissed for lack of standing.

Water rights

1st Amendment, RFRA

Plaintiff lacks standing.

Holding that the term “punishable by death” in the UCMJ is basically a term of art. 

Ark Act 900 stands in the relevant part

Grant of relief, enjoining NY Gov Cuomo from enforcing restrictions on religious gatherings. 

Reversing a preliminary injunction - allowing executions to move forward for federal prisoners.

Presidential subpoenas.

MCA, "Indian country" and eastern Oklahoma.

Employment discrimination claims in these cases are foreclosed by the  Ministerial exception.

  Presidential Subpoenas 

RFRA, ACA & Contraceptives. As well as the APA & Interim Final Rulemaking.

No exception for government debt.

Also Colorado Department of State v Baca

Booking.com is not a generic name.

Can’t discriminate solely on the basis of religious affiliation (distinguishing religious conduct as different).

First Amendment argument fails.

The appointment and removal provisions for the director of the CFPB is unconstitutional, but this stuff is severable from the dodd frank act. 

A Louisiana law requiring admitting privileges at nearby hospitals for abortion doctors is unconstitutional.

Habius is not useful in requesting asylum determination review, just for release from custody.

Some stuff about equitable principles.

DACA can not be rescinded without further/better explanation by the DHS.

Supreme court considers the disputed land an easement to the National park service, thus in this case the pipeline permit is ok.

Title VII of the civil rights act makes it illegal to discriminate in employment against people for being gay, or transgender.

In regards to the Prison litigation reform act §1915(g)’s 3 strikes rule, qualifying dismissals count as strikes regardless as to if they are dismissed with or without prejudice.

• Plaintiffs in defined benefits retirement plans who suffer no injury in fact, do not have standing to sue.

Appealing CAT orders is allowed in this case.

The board can stay, they are primarily considered to be local officers, not federal officers.

Can sue for punitive damages in this case.

This issue is not similar enough to qualify for defensive issue or claim preclusion.

Regarding the wore fraud charges not being appropriate. 

9th Circuit can not make this case about something that the parties had not already presented.

Vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Mostly Moot/can’t assert a new clam here.

The annotations are not copyrightable.

The government obligated itself to pay in this instance. (Health insurance risk corridors)

The point source case.

Willfullness not specifically required under §1125(a).

Reviewability of decision to do an inter partes review.

The 6th amendment (through the 14th)  requires unanimous jury to convict on serious crimes.

Dispute over a superfund site in Montana.

PC Opinion on an Injunction relating to the election in Wisconsin.

ADEA

Without additional information to rebut the presumption, it is reasonable for an officer to believe a vehicle belonging to a driver with a revoked license is being driven by the owner.

Safe berth clause of sub charter agreement In this case means safe berth, not due diligence.

Telling the 5th circuit to review for plain error.

Court says §1981 still needs but-for causation.

the court refuses to set a constitutional bar for the insanity defense.

Court holds CRCA does not properly abrogate state sovereign immunity against copyright infringement.

In this case the question is a “question of law”

The fact info is used on the I-9 form, does not preempt that information (submitted on other forms) from being used to prosecute for fraud.

petitioner did enough to preserve right of appeal. 

ERISA - Defining “Actual Knowledge” as being Actual Knowledge.

ACCA arguments, including things depending on what the definition of “is” is.

Court refuses to extend Bivens to the cross border shooting of a child by a border patrol officer.

In Re the Bob Richards rule.

Death penalty appeal in re Clemons (because Ring and Hurst aren’t retroactive on collateral review) 

Considering the Hague convention’s definition of “habitual residence” of a child  and a few other factors in re: “returning” a child

Once a case is removed to federal court, the state court can’t do anything, until federal courts are finished.

Court say ERISA and the fiduciary duty of ESOP administrators is complecated.

PTO can not recover attorney fees via §145, because ”all expenses” is not sufficient to overcome the American Rule.

refusing to read in a time of discovery exception into the FDCPA’s §1692k(d) 1-year statute of limitations.

Court isn’t to fond of Alaska’s low political contributions limits.

A case recently argued about in 

Mathena v. Malvo

Uploading to check equipment and upload ability to podcast sources before we start getting new decisions.

In re the census citizenship question.

It’s legal.

No help from the courts on partisan gerrymandering.

Under the 21st amendment and the dormant commerce clause, Tennessee’s two-year residency requirement for new alcohol sales licensing is unconstitutional. 

Auer and seminole rock stand.

Holding ”crime of voilence” to be unconstitutionally vague.

Punitive damages are not available for unseaworthiness claims.

PTO can not refuse trademarks on grounds that they are ”immoral or scandalous”.

This info is confidential under part 4 of FOIA exceptions.

Williamson co. Is overruled

”knowingly” in sec 924(a)(2) means ”knowingly”

NC Can not tax this trust in this instance, based on only state residence.

The sex offender registry’s registration of pre act offenders in not an issue of unconstitutional congressional delegation.

When does the limitations period clock start ticking in re a claim of fabricated evidence.

Remand for consideration of a few things.

The Bladensburg cross may remain.

The separate sovereigns doctrine is not implicated by double jeopardy. 

A Virginia ban on Uranium mining is upheld.

The Manhattan community access corp, is not a government actor in regards to the 1st amendment right to free speech.

The house is denied standing.

Quarles’ burglary conviction counts under the Armed Career Criminal act.

In this context, Agents of the sovereign (federal agencies) are not “persons” in this section of the AIA.

CA Law needs to fill a gap in federal law to be applicable on the outer continental shelf, under the OCSLA, it can not simply be “not inconsistent”.

In re notice and comment when changing substanitive rules. 

Vacate and remand, contempt findings in this context require “no fair ground of doubt”.

About claim filing rules.

Prisoner does not get credit for his pre trial custody in re his supervised release for another crime.

Definition of “final decision”

Third party counterclaim defendants can not remove to federal court.

Explicitly stated not to be case about the right to an abortion, although i’m sure the news media will tell you so.

Still have a bit of a sore throat, so apologies on some audible swallowing noises etc.

Retaliatory arrest claim defeated by probable cause to arrest. 

A clarification on what is considered clear evidence that a drug company could not fulfill it’s duty to warn in light of FDA refusals to allow label changes.

Breach of a contract under the bankruptcy code still constitutes breach of a contract in this instance.

Bighorn national forest is not “occupied lands” in the context of an 1865 treaty.  Said treaty did not expire upon Wyoming's statehood. 

Regarding relators filing qui tam and when is too late.

Consumers may sue apple for allegedly monopolizing app sales.

Nevada v Hall is overruled.

The Tennessee Valley Authority is not completely immune from suit, but there may be other exceptions.

Courts may not use ambiguous wording about consent to class arbitration to force class arbitration even over the idea of contra proferentem.

Fyi Scintilla means -
a tiny trace or spark of a specified quality or feeling.

Court declines to create a categorical rule making expert testimony given without REQUESTED supporting documentation invalid in ALJ hearings.

Bucklew (prisoner) looses this challenge.

Lorenzo can be charged under 10b-5 (a) and (c) even if he does not meet the qualifications to be charged under subsection (b) - as understood through the lens of Janus v SEC.

Service to a foreign state’s minister of foreign affairs, under FISA can not be to the embassy in the US.

The alaska hovercraft case (again).
ANILCA doesn’t give the park service authority over navigible waters.

Basically a remand to determine standing.

In this specific maritime context, manufacturers have a duty to warn when they know a dangerous part will, or must be incorporated into their product, and have reason to believe that users will be unaware of the danger.  (Here asbestos).

For purposes of the fair debt collection practices act, enforcers of security interests are NOT debt collectors.

Section 1226’s order to detain without release certain classes of aliens, does not hinge upon immedate arest upon release from criminal detention.

An 1855 treaty pre-empts Washington state’s ability to Tax the Yakama nation’s importation of fuel. 

Copyright is regestered when the regester regesters it, not when the paperwork is filed.

Railroad retirment act - “compensation” includes payment for lost wages.

The word “full” can not modify an already defined “costs”, in this statute.

imunities of foreign corporations are the SAME as foreign government immunity TODAY.

Errors were made in a determination of competence for death.

Counsel may not refuse to file a notice to appeal, even if the defendant waived the right to appeal.

Lambert’s 23b filing was untimley.

Dead judges votes can not be counted if the opinion is filed after their death.

8th Amendment prohibition on excessive fines IS incorporated against states via the 14th amendment.

States can not have tax breaks that discriminate against federal employees who otherwise meet the qualifications for said tax break.

Rulling that Mr. Moore is intelectually disabled enough to be ineligible for the death penalty.

“On sale” exception to patents.
Also, i had no idea how to pronounce “palonosetron”, close ‘nuff i reckon.

Court holds an independent contractor truck driver can not be forced into arbitration because the 1925 arbitration act excludes transportation workers who are engaged in interstate commerce.  Also holds that “independent contractors” are considered to have signed “contracts of employment” even though they are not in an explicit employer employee relationship.

Full disclosure: as a long time truck driver, i have long known companies like new prime, swift, and cr england, to be engaged in preying on brand new truck drivers with their “lease purchase, independent contractor” agreements.

Most of the industry knows it, and if you sat down at any truck stop lunch counter and said “i’m thinking of signing a lease with [one of the previously mentioned companies]” you would quite litterally hear a chorus of veterans telling you not to — an instant groan, and a bunch if people truly trying to help the new guy from making a huge mistake.

So i’m quite glad this went the way it did.

Robbery is a violent offense for purposes of the ACCAs sentence enhancments. 

The 25% cap on social security attorney fees only covers in court representation, not representation before the agency.

Arbitration agreements that contractually deligate questions of arbitrarily to an arbitrator do exactly that — no matter if the request seeking to compell arbitration is “wholy groundless”.

Court rules that “right to be free of excessive force” is a bit to highly generalized to be considered “clearly established law” in regards to stripping qualified immunity.

Court also holds you can’t reinstate an excessive force claim, without any proof or even discussion, as to if the defendant even touched the plaintiff — especially after it has already been decided by another court that the defendant did not, because of body camera video footage proving no contact. (Sadly, not a joke).

Mostly a decision that 2254 (d) (1) apeals can not use court cases that didn’t exist at the time of the origin of the appeal.

Burglary can include mobile residences and or vehicles adapted for sleeping.

The Dusky Gopher Frog case.
Regarding designation of critical habitat.

Court hold that ADEA numerosity limitation does not apply to state government subdivisions.

First amendment retaliation, under narrow circumstances in this case.

Court affirms the below judgement because of a 4/4 Split.

Upholding Arbitration agreements

Counsel may not Plead Not-Guilty, at the client's insistence, and then--at trial--admit guilt, over the objection of his client. (Sixth Amendment)