Molly Lehrkind

United States Supreme Court (12 summaries)

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

(1) Whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is beyond Congress’ powers under Article I because it includes a mandate that individuals must 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

Martinez v. Ryan

A federal habeas court may excuse a procedural default of an ineffective-assistance of counsel claim when the claim was not properly presented in state court due to an attorney’s errors in an initial-review collateral proceeding.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Wood v. Milyard

(1) Whether an appellate court has the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) statute of limitations defense; and (2) whether the state’s declaration before the district court that it “will not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of [petitioner’s] habeas petition,” amounts to a waiver of any statute of limitations defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Wetzel v. Lambert

The Third Circuit failed to assess the state court’s determinations for reasonableness under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Perry v. Perez, Perry v. Davis, Perry v. Perez

Whether a district court may order the use of judicially drawn "interim" electoral maps while preclearance procedures, required by the Voting Rights Act, remaining pending.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

Hardy v. Cross

Certiorari granted and the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Cross v. Hardy is reversed.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Judulang v. Holder

The BIA’s policy for applying §212(c) in deportation cases is “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Corp

Whether the Locomotive Inspection Act (“LIA”), which regulates the “use” of a locomotive on a railroad line 49 U.S.C. § 20701, preempts the field of state common-law product liability claims by workers injured in railroad maintenance facilities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Golan v. Holder

Whether the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment prohibit Congress from removing works that were previously placed in the public domain.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC

Whether the ministerial exception to employment law litigation applies to an employee of a religious organization whose job duties include secular and religious activities.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Maples v. Thomas

Whether there is “cause” to excuse a procedural default where petitioner is blameless for the default, the state's own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner's attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his agents at the time of any default.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Douglas v. Indep. Living Center Of S. Ca; Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital

Whether Medicaid recipients and providers maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce certain provisions of the Medicaid Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (5 summaries)

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

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

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