Corey Riley

United States Supreme Court (32 summaries)

Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project

Pursuant to the Court's "established practice," the September 2017 expiration of the ninety-day term for the President's travel ban—of foreign nationals from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering into the U.S.—leaves Respondents' Establishment Clause challenge moot.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Lee v. U.S.

Under the Sixth Amendment, an undocumented criminal defendant, who pleaded guilty to a deportable offense due to ineffective assistance of counsel, meets the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington if there is sufficient evidence to establish a “reasonable probability” that the defendant would have proceeded to trial but for the erroneous legal advice.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Maslenjak v. U.S.

To convict under 18 U. S. C. §1425(a), the finder of fact must determine that the defendant committed an illegal act to influence his application for citizenship, the illegal act was a legal basis to disqualify the defendant’s admission, and the defendant did not prove they were qualified for citizenship.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Matal v. Tam

The disparagement clause of 15 U. S. C. §1052(a), which forbids the registration of trademarks containing possible “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” to any “persons,” is viewpoint regulation of private speech that fails First Amendment scrutiny.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

McWilliams v. Dunn

Under Ake v. Oklahoma, a state is required to provide more than an expert mental health evaluation to assist with an indigent defendant’s insanity defense during the death penalty phase; it must also provide the defendant with access to an independent mental health expert to aid with the preparation and the presentation of the defendant's death penalty phase defense.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc.

A debt purchaser is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Consumer Credit

Microsoft v. Baker

A voluntary dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit in which the parties have stipulated to renew the claim if an appellate court reverses the denial of class certification is not a final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc.

Under 42 U. S. C. §262(l), an applicant for FDA approval of a biosimilar cannot be enjoined for failing to provide manufacturing information of the biosimilar, although it may under state law; and, the applicant may give the sponsor of the biosimilar notice of its application before or after receiving its FDA license.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Virginia v. Leblanc

Under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1), the standard for a federal court to review the constitutionality of a state court’s decision vis-a-vis a petition for writ of habeas corpus does not permit the federal court to disturb the state court’s decision unless the state court unreasonably applied federal law and there is “no fairminded disagreement” regarding how it acted unreasonably.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Kokesh v. SEC

The 5-year statute of limitations, under 28 U. S. C. §2462, applies to securities-enforcement disgorgement claims.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

North Carolina v. Covington

In evaluating racial gerrymandering determinations in the context of special elections, courts must apply a particularized analysis that takes into account the "balance of equities."

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell

§56 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act does not confer to the States the power to exercise personal jurisdiction over nonresident corporations that are not “at home” in the putative forum state.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc.

If a patent holder sells its patented item, then it has exhausted its patent rights as it relates to that item, whether or not the terms of the sale of the item placed restrictions on the item’s use after the sale.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

The residence of a domestic corporation under the patent infringement venue statute, 28 U. S. C. §1400(b), is the state in which the entity is incorporated.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Howell v. Howell

§1408(a)(4)(B) preempts a state court from indemnifying a veteran’s former spouse for their lost portion of retirement that was awarded in a divorce proceeding and which was subsequently waived for the veteran to receive disability benefits under the statute.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson

A “proof of claim” filed by a creditor in a bankruptcy proceeding that is determined to be unenforceable pursuant to a statute of limitations is not “false,” “deceptive,” “misleading,” “unconscionable,” or “unfair” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U. S. C. §1692k.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Remedies

Lewis v. Clarke

Tribal sovereign immunity does not extend to all Tribal employees to bar claims of wrongful conduct allegedly committed within the scope of their employment.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Nelson v. Colorado

Only “minimal procedures” can be placed on persons attempting to recover costs, fees, and restitution that were ordered in criminal convictions for which the persons were subsequently exonerated, as a matter of Due Process.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Post-Conviction Relief

Coventry Health Care Of Mo., Inc. v. Nevils

The preemption clause of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (“FEHBA”) is valid under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and it overrides state laws that prohibit FEHBA subrogation and reimbursement requirements.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Preemption

Beckles v. U.S.

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to vagueness challenges under the Due Process Clause because they only guide the exercise of a court's discretion.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools

The exhaustion clause of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) only applies if the gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint seeks relief under the IDEA.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Disability Law

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp.

12 U. S. C. §1723a(a)’s sued-and-be-sued clause does not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over all cases involving Fannie Mae.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Shaw v. U.S.

Convictions for “knowingly execut[ing] a scheme … to defraud a financial institution,” pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1344(1), are valid if the scheme defrauds bank customer accounts, because financial institutions have property rights in customer accounts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corporation

Whether a congressional charter authorizing an entity to “sue and be sued…in any court of competent jurisdiction, state or federal” confers federal subject matter jurisdiction?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

Voisine v. United States

A person convicted of a misdemeanor crime of reckless domestic violence is prohibited from possessing a firearm or ammunition under 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(9).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

Affirmative-action admission policies at public universities may be permissible under the Equal Protection Clause, because promoting racial diversity in student bodies and classrooms is a compelling state interest, but schools have an ongoing obligation to refine the management their admission policies to ensure that equal protection violations are not occurring as demographics change.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Utah v. Strieff

Evidence acquired in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule is admissible when an officer, conducting a good faith, bona fide investigation, discovers a valid warrant against the defendant, which qualifies as an intervening circumstance in application of the attenuation exception to the exclusionary rule.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.

Enhanced damages under § 284 of the Patent Act are awarded on a discretionary basis against egregious and willful patent infringers, and non-discretionary frameworks or tests for enhanced patent infringement damages are not permissible when inconsistent with § 284.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Patents

Williams v. Pennsylvania

There is an impermissible risk of bias, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, when a judge’s prior involvement in a case as the prosecutor is significant, personal, and related to a critical decision.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Wittman v. Personhuballah

To satisfy the Article III standing requirements, a party must raise more than a mere allegation of an injury, but must also present evidence that an injury resulted from the challenged conduct.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Standing

Betterman v. Montana

The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial does not apply once a defendant has been found guilty at trial or pleaded guilty, including the time between conviction and sentencing, although other Due Process challenges may still be raised.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins

In a federal claim, an allegation of a mere procedural violation of law is not concrete enough to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of standing.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Procedure

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (7 summaries)

Dalmazzi v. U.S.

Whether the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, or the prohibition of active-duty military service officers from dual-officeholding pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii), disqualifies a judge who sits on a military Court of Criminal Appeals, if they are also commissioned or appointed to the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Rosales-Mireles v. U.S.

Whether the Court's discretionary inquiry under harmless error review, which requires the error to "seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” may be expressed and applied as an error that "would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge.”

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Carpenter v. U.S.

Whether the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures protects from the government's warrantless collection of cell phone data that includes the cell user’s historic location.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure

Leidos, Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System

Whether Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K sets forth an affirmative duty to disclose that is actionable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago

Whether the thirty-day limit for extending the deadline to file notices of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is a statutory mandate or a claim-processing rule open to equitable exceptions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Appellate Procedure

Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch

Whether a conviction under the laws of seven states that criminalize consensual sex with a twenty-one year old and an individual who is almost eighteen is an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act and in turn grounds for mandatory removal, when such conduct is legal in forty-three other states, the District of Columbia, and the Model Penal Code?

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Welch v. United States

Collateral petitioners convicted under the Armed Career Criminal Act may seek retroactive relief consistent with the Court’s prior ruling that the residual clause of the Act is void for vagueness.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Procedure