United States Supreme Court

Opinions Filed in 2019

January 5 summaries

City of Escondido, California v. Marty Emmons

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity only when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established rights, both statutory and constitutional, of which a reasonable person would have known. This clearly established right must be specifically defined to trigger a determination of qualified immunity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Shoop v. Hill

Whether the decision in Hill v. Anderson, 881 F. 3d 483 (2018) violated 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) by applying case law which was not “clearly established” at the time of state adjudication.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Culbertson v. Berryhill

Section 406 (a) and (b) of the Social Security Act separately address fees to be awarded to attorneys that represent claimants at the agency stage and in court, not an aggregate amount for both.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Attorney Fees

New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira

Courts, not arbitrators, determine the applicability of Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, and the term “contracts of employment” applies broadly to include agreements to perform work.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Helsinn Healthcare v. TEVA Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

A sale to a third party, even with a confidentiality obligation, may still qualify as a “sale” under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

February 7 summaries

Moore v. Texas

Under the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, the State of Texas failed to apply appropriate standards for determining intellectual capacity in relation to capital punishment, which should be informed by current medical standards.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Dawson v. Steager

West Virginia engaged in unlawful discrimination in violation of 4 U.S.C. § 111 when it taxed the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retirees and exempted from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Timbs v. Indiana

The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eight Amendment is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Nutraceutical Corporation v. Lambert

The doctrine of equitable tolling does not apply to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Garza v. Idaho

When an attorney’s ineffective assistance costs a defendant an appeal that the defendant would have otherwise pursued, prejudice to the defendant is presumed – even when that defendant has signed an appeal waiver.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Jam v. International Finance Corp.

Under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (IOIA), international organizations enjoy the same privileges and immunities as enjoyed by foreign governments, as such the immunity of international organizations is tethered to changes in immunity of foreign governments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Madison v. Alabama

The Eighth Amendment permits execution of a prisoner who cannot remember committing the crime. Panetti v. Quarterman requires only the ability of the prisoner to comprehend the State's reason for the punishment and that judges look downstream to determine whether a specific mental condition may limit the prisoner's ability to comprehend the State's rationale at any time leading up to his execution.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

March 11 summaries

BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos

An award compensating for lost wages is subject to taxation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act (“RRTA”).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tax Law

Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall Street.com, LLC, et al

Registration of a copyright, for purposes of 17 U.S.C. §411(a), occurs when the Register of Copyrights registers a copyright. A copyright owner gains exclusive rights in his work upon its creation and may, upon registration, recover for a copyright infringement that occurred before registration under 17 U.S.C. §501(b) but must thereafter pursue registration pursuant to §411(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc.

The Copyright Act’s reference to “full costs” does not authorize a court to award litigation expenses beyond the six categories specified by Congress.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Copyright

Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. Devries

In maritime tort context, product manufacturers have a duty to warn when a product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that danger is realizable by users.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Tort Law

Nielsen v. Preap

The mandatory detention provision of 18 U.S.C. § 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

Washington State Dep’t of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.

The 1855 treaty between the United State and Yakama Nation forbids the State of Washington from imposing statutory taxes upon fuel importers of the Yakama Nation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Frank v. Gaos

Spokeo v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), establishes that Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP

A business engaged only in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings does not constitute a debt collector under section 1692a(6) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), with the exception of the limited purpose definition of section 1692f(6).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Republic of Sudan v. Harrison

The Foreign State Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. §§1604,1608(a)(3), requires that service through mailing upon on a foreign state must be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the minister’s home country.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Sturgeon v. Frost

The Nation River in Alaska is not public land and the National Park Service is prohibited from regulating non-public land under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Land Use

Lorenzo v. SEC

Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Rules 10b–5(a) and (c) of the Securities Exchange Act, as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator did not “make” the statements and consequently falls outside Rule 10b–5(b).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Business Law

April 4 summaries

Biestek v. Berryhill

An expert’s refusal to provide data related to testimony about the availability of certain jobs does not preclude the expert’s testimony from constituting substantial evidence under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

Bucklew v. Precythe

Baze v. Rees, 553 U. S. 35 (2008) and Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain whether the challenged are facial or as-applied.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Arbitration

Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority

The waiver of immunity in the Tennessee Valley Authority’s "sue-and-be-sued" clause is not subject to a discretionary function exception of the kind in the Federal Tort Claims Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

May 10 summaries

Apple, Inc. v. Pepper

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois established a bright-line rule authorizing direct purchasers to bring suit against alleged antitrust violators.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Antitrust

Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt

§3731(b)(2) of the False Claims Act applies to suits initiated by private persons where the government has declined to intervene and private persons of a non-intervened suit do not constitute officials of the United States for the purposes of triggering the three year limitation period of §3731(b)(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

States retain sovereign immunity when suits are brought by private parties in courts of other States, overruling Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Herrera v. Wyoming

Wyoming’s statehood did not abrogate an 1868 treaty between the United States and the Crow Indian Tribe regarding tribal members’ rights to hunt on "unoccupied lands" and Bighorn National Forest is not categorically "occupied."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht

Absence of “clear evidence that the FDA would not approve a change to a label, the Court will not conclude that it was impossible… to comply with both federal and state requirements.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Mission Products Holdings, INC., v. Tempnology, LLC, NKA Old Cold LLC

A debtor's rejection of an executory contract in bankruptcy has the same effect as a breach outside bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 365.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.

The disposal of fetal remains constitutes a legitimate governmental interest and governmental regulation will satisfy rational basis review even without perfect tailoring, but the regulation of selective abortions constitutes a novel legal issue that more appellate courts must consider before Supreme Court review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., v. Jackson

28 U. S. C. §1441(a) and Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) §1453(b) removal provisions do not allow third-party defendants to remove a matter to federal court.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Nieves v. Bartlett

The existence of probable cause, examined under an objective standard, generally precludes retaliatory arrest claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Smith v. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

A dismissal for untimeliness by the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council is a “final decision . . . made after a hearing” for purposes of allowing judicial review under 42 U.S.C. §405(g).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

June 29 summaries

Azar v. Allina Health Services

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1395hh(a)(2), the implementation of new policy by the Department of Health and Human Services without statutory notice and comment results in the policy being vacated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis

The charge-filing instruction of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not a jurisdictional rule.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Mont v. United States

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e), pretrial detention qualifies as “imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction” when subsequent sentencing credits that detention as time served, thereby tolling the period of supervised release.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Taggart v. Lorenzen, Executor of the Estate Of Brown

A court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a discharge order where there is not a ‘fair ground of doubt’ as to whether the creditor’s conduct might be lawful under the discharge order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law

Lincolnshire v. Intl. Union of Operating Engineers Local 399

New legislation in Illinois that bars passage of local ordinances prohibiting employers from compelling employees to associate with or fund unions renders the city of Lincolnshire’s argument that 29 U.S.C. § 164(b) extends to the political subdivisions of states moot.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton

Where federal law addresses the relevant issue, state law is not adopted as surrogate federal law on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Quarles v. United States

For sentencing purposes under 18 U.S.C. §924(e), a remaining-in burglary occurs when a defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while unlawfully remaining in the building or structure. A state law will qualify for enhanced sentencing purposes so long as it substantially corresponds or is narrower than the federal statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service

Headline: Under the America Invents Act, a federal agency is not a “person” eligible to institute post-issuance review proceedings challenging a patent’s validity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Gamble v. United States

The Dual-Sovereignty Doctrine is neither contrary nor an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck

Operation of public access channels is not a traditional, exclusive public function; private entities that operate public access channels are not state actors and are not restricted by the First Amendment in their editorial discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill

An intervening party to a litigation must, in its own right, meet all the elements of standing to appeal a decision which the primary party does not wish to challenge.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren

The Atomic Energy Act does not preempt state prohibitions on uranium mining on private lands within state borders.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

American Legion v. American Humanist Assn.

Under the Establishment Clause, the passage of time gives rise to a presumption of constitutionality for monuments, symbols, and practices, even where such monuments, symbols, or practices include symbolic references to faith.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Gundy v. United States

Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) provision 34 U. S. C. §§20913(d), does not violate the nondelegation doctrine by allowing the Attorney General to enforce and apply the Act registration requirements to pre-Act offenders.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

McDonough v. Smith

The statute of limitations for a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging the use of fabricated evidence, begins to run when criminal proceedings against a defendant are terminated in his or her favor.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust

States may not tax trusts based solely on the in-state residency of a beneficiary.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc.

When determining whether a court must follow an order issued by an administrative agency, a court must first determine whether the order is legislative or interpretive and whether the petitioner had a prior and adequate opportunity to seek judicial review of the order.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Flowers v. Mississippi

A state may not use preemptory challenges that are substantially motivated by discriminatory intent to strike prospective jurors in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution and United States Supreme Court precedent.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Property owners with an actionable takings claim are no longer required to litigate state action for just compensation before pursuing a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983, overruling Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172 (1985).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights § 1983

Rehaif v. United States

In a prosecution under §922(g) and §924(a)(2), the Government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Dutra Group v. Batterton

Punitive damages are unavailable for mariner plaintiffs in claims of unseaworthiness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Admiralty

Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media

Under Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, commercial and financial information that is “customarily and actually treated as private by its owner and provided to the government under an assurance of [express or implied] privacy” is deemed confidential.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

Iancu v. Brunetti

The prohibition against immoral or scandalous trademarks in 15 U.S.C. §1052(a) is viewpoint based discrimination and violates the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

United States v. Davis

18 U. S. C. §924(c)(3)(B)’s definition of a crime of violence as an "offense that by its nature involves a risk of force" mandates the use of a categorical approach, making the clause unconstitutionally vague.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers v. Thomas, Exec. Dir. of the Tennessee Alcoholic Beverage Commission

State-mandated durational residence requirements for business owners applying for retail liquor store licensing is unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause and is not protected by the Twenty-First Amendment § 2.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

United States v. Haymond

The mandatory minimum sentence imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 3853(k) violates the right to a trial by jury guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Department of Commerce v. New York

(1) The potential loss of federal funds from a citizenship question on the 2020 census impacting state population counts establishes Article III standing to sue. (2) The extensive authority granted to Congress and delegated to the Secretary of Commerce under the Enumeration Clause provides no basis to enjoin the Secretary from reinstating a citizenship question. (3) The Administrative Procedure Act reflects a presumption of judicial review that makes the Secretary’s decision amenable to judicial review. (4) Evidence of the Secretary’s intent to reinstate the citizenship question from the time he entered office conflicts with the given rationale for reinstating a citizenship question and warrants further explanation by the Department of Commerce for the basis of the Secretary’s decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Mitchell v. Wisconsin

When a driver is unconscious and therefore cannot be given a breath test, the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment generally permits a blood test without a warrant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Rucho v. Common Cause

Partisan gerrymandering claims remain political questions for Congress, not the judiciary, to resolve.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

July 0 summaries

August 0 summaries

September 0 summaries

October 0 summaries

November 1 summary

Thompson v. Hebdon

In Randall v. Sorrell, 548 U.S. 230 (2006), the Supreme Court established that political contribution limits that are unfairly low prevent challengers from launching effective campaigns and therefore negatively impact democratic accountability.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

December 2 summaries

Rotkiske v. Klemm

The one-year statute of limitations under 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d) begins to run on the date on which the alleged FDCPA violation occurs and not on the date that the violation is discovered, absent the application of an equitable doctrine.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Peter v. Nantkwest

Under section 145 of the Patent Act, the term “expenses” does not include attorney’s fees.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Back to Top