United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted Opinions

2011

October 3 summaries

Freeman v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

Whether § 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) prohibits a real estate settlement services provider from charging an unearned fee only if the fee is divided between two or more parties.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Mohamad v. Rajoub

(Whether the Torture Victim Protection Act includes corporations or organizations as possible defendants.)

Area(s) of Law:
  • Corporations

United States v. Alvarez

(Whether the Stolen Valor Act is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.)

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

November 9 summaries

Armour v. Indianapolis

Whether the City of Indianapolis violated the 14th Amendment by forgiving outstanding assessments for some property owners while not offering refunds for others who had paid in full.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Astrue v. Capato

Whether a child conceived after his biological father's death and prohibited by state intestacy law from inheriting personal property is nonetheless eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services

Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's expansion of the Medicaid law exceeds Congress's power under the Spending Clause of Article I.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

Whether the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act must be invalidated because its mandate requiring individuals to obtain health insurance is nonseverable from the remainder of the Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida

(1) Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is beyond Congress’ Article I power because it includes a mandate for individuals to obtain health insurance or pay a monetary fine; and (2) Whether the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a), bars suits by challengers to the Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (11-204)

(1) Whether deference is owed to the to the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s sales exemption; and (2)whether the FLSA’s outside sale exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Administrative Law

Hill v. United States and Dorsey v. United States

Whether the Fair Sentencing Act applies in a sentencing proceeding that takes place on or after the statute’s effective date when the underlying offense occurred prior to that date.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Southern Union Co. v. U.S.

Whether the Apprendi requirement, which requires any fact, other than a prior conviction, that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt, applies to criminal fines.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

F.A.A. v. Cooper

Whether a plaintiff who alleges only mental and emotional injuries can establish actual damages within the meaning of the civil remedies provision of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

December 3 summaries

Arizona v. United States

Whether an Arizona immigration law is preempted by federal law, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak and Patchak v. Salazar

Whether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has standing to challenge a decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act, and (2) whether a suit of that nature is an action under the Quiet Title Act, which supplants section 702 of the Administrative Procedures Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank

Whether a debtor may pursue a Chapter 11 plan that proposes to sell assets free of liens without allowing the secured creditor to credit bid, but instead providing it with the indubitable equivalent of its claim under Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Bankruptcy Law