Trevor Byrd

United States Supreme Court (7 summaries)

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al.

Members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission exhibited an impermissible hostility towards religion and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren

Prior decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502 U.S. 251, does not foreclose tribal sovereign immunity defenses for in rem actions as traditionally believed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Sessions v. Dimaya

With respect to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 18 U.S.C. §16(b) is unconstitutionally vague; in part because the similarly worded “residual clause” in the Armed Career Criminal Act was held unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Texas v. New Mexico

The United States may intervene in a lawsuit between to defend its “distinctively federal interests,” where various factors collectively persuade the Court to permit such intervention.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Water Rights

Rubin, et al., v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al.

Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act identifies property that will be available for attachment and execution in satisfaction of § 1605(A) judgments, but it does not in itself divest that property of foreign sovereign immunity.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

CNH Industrial N.V. v. Jack Reese

A contract is not ambiguous unless it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, and the Yard-Man inferences cannot generate a reasonable interpretation because they are not “ordinary principles of contract law.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Contract Law

Kernan v. Cuero

There is no precedent that mandates specific performance for a criminal defendant who, after the State filed an amended complaint that required a higher mandatory minimum sentence than the initial complaint, pleads guilty to the amended complaint and is sentenced to serve a longer mandatory minimum.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (9 summaries)

BNSF Railway Company v. Loos

Whether a railroad’s payment to an employee for time lost from work is subject to employment taxes under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Workers Compensation

Frank v. Gaos

Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Chavez-Meza v. United States

Whether a district court must explain its decision when deciding not to grant a proportional sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) when the reasons are not otherwise apparent from the record, or is it sufficient that the reduction is issued on a pre-printed form order containing boilerplate language as set forth in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Lagos v. United States

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers costs that were “neither required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim’s own purposes and unprompted by any official government action.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

China Agritech, Inc. v. Michael Resh, Et Al.

Whether the rule from American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida

Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Dahda v. United States

Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Janus v. American Federation

Whether mandatory public-sector agency fees are compelled speech, in violation of the First Amendment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

McCoy v. Louisiana

Whether defense counsel's decision to concede guilt in a capital case, over the defendant’s express objection, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights and Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure