Supreme Court Cases - 2011-2016

6/19/2017 Supreme Court Cases - 2016 - ScotusBlog
Search Blog or Docket

Blog Docket
Editor's Note : The court will be issuing opinions on Thursday at 10 a.m.

The Supreme Court proceedings and orders in the legal challenges to the administrations entry ban are available at this link.
October Term 2016

View this list sorted by case name.
October Sitting
Shaw v. U.S., No. 15-5991 [Arg: 10.4.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 12.12.2016]
Holding: (1) The defendant's arguments that subsection (1) of the bank fraud statute, which covers schemes to deprive a bank of money in a customer's deposit
account, does not apply to him because he intended to cheat only a bank depositor, not a bank, are unpersuasive; and (2) with regard to the parties' dispute
over whether the district court improperly instructed the jury that a scheme to defraud a bank must be one to deceive the bank or deprive it of something of
value, instead of one to deceive and deprive, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit is left to determine whether that question was properly presented and
if so, whether the instruction given is lawful, and, if not, whether any error was harmless.
Bravo-Fernandez v. U.S., No. 15-537 [Arg: 10.4.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 11.29.2016]
Holding: The issue-preclusion component of the double jeopardy clause, which bars a second contest of an issue of fact or law raised and necessarily resolved
by a prior judgment, does not bar the government from retrying defendants after a jury has returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts of conviction and
acquittal and the convictions are later vacated for legal error unrelated to the inconsistency.
Salman v. U.S., No. 15-628 [Arg: 10.5.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 12.6.2016]
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit properly applied the court's decision in Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission to affirm Bassam
Salman's conviction because, under Dirks, the jury could infer that Salman's tipper personally benefited from making a gift of confidential information to a
trading relative.
Buck v. Davis, No. 15-8049 [Arg: 10.5.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 2.22.2017]
Holding: (1) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit exceeded the limited scope of analysis for a certificate of appealability, which, by statute, follows a
two-step process: an initial determination whether a claim is reasonably debatable, and, if so, an appeal in the normal course; and (2) petitioner Duane Buck
has demonstrated ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington; and (3) the district court's denial of Buck's motion under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) was an abuse of discretion.
Manuel v. City of Joliet, No. 14-9496 [Arg: 10.5.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.21.2017]
Holding: (1) Elijah Manuel may challenge his pretrial detention on Fourth Amendment grounds; and (2) on remand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit should determine the accrual date of Manuel's Fourth Amendment claim, unless it finds that the city of Joliet has previously waived its timeliness
argument.
Manrique v. U.S., No. 15-7250 [Arg: 10.11.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 4.19.2017]
Holding: A defendant wishing to appeal an order imposing restitution in a deferred restitution case must file a notice of appeal from that order; if he fails to do
so and the government objects, he may not challenge the restitution order on appeal.
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, No. 15-606 [Arg: 10.11.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.6.2017]
Holding: When a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth
Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any
resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, No. 15-777 [Arg: 10.11.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 12.6.2016]
Holding: In the case of a multicomponent product, the relevant article of manufacture for arriving at a damages award under Section 289 of the Patent Act need
not be the end product sold to the consumer but may be only a component of that product.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2016/ 1/8
November Sitting
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, No. 15-497 [Arg: 10.31.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 2.22.2017]
Holding: (1) Exhaustion of the administrative procedures established by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is unnecessary when the gravamen of
the plaintiff's suit is something other than the denial of the IDEA's core guarantee of a "free appropriate public education"; and (2) the case is remanded to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit for a proper analysis of whether the gravamen of E.F.'s complaint -- which alleges only disability-based discrimination,
without making any reference to the adequacy of the special-education services E.F.'s school provided -- charges, and seeks relief for, the denial of a FAPE.
Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, No. 15-866 [Arg: 10.31.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.22.2017]
Holding: A feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976 only if the feature (1) can
be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic or sculptural
work -- either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression -- if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is
incorporated; that test is satisfied here.
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927 [Arg: 11.1.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.21.2017]
Holding: Laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for damages brought within the six-year limitations period of Section 286 of the Patent Act.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513 [Arg: 11.1.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 12.6.2016]
Holding: A seal violation does not mandate dismissal of a relator's complaint under the False Claims Act.
Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l, No. 15-423 [Arg: 11.2.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.1.2017]
Holding: A case falls within the scope of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Acts expropriation exception only if the property in which a party claims to hold
rights was indeed "property taken in violation of international law"; simply making a nonfrivolous argument to that effect is not sufficient; a court should
resolve any factual disputes about a foreign sovereign's immunity defense as near to the outset of the case as is reasonably possible.
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, No. 15-1251 [Arg: 11.7.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.21.2017]
Holding: (1) Subsection (b)(1) of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which prevents a person who has been nominated to fill a vacant office requiring
presidential appointment and Senate confirmation from performing the duties of that office in an acting capacity, applies to anyone performing acting service
under the FVRA and is not limited to first assistants performing acting service under Subsection (a)(1); and (2) Subsection (b)(1) prohibited Lafe Solomon from
continuing his service as acting general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board once the president nominated him to fill the position permanently.
Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami, No. 15-1112 [Arg: 11.8.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.1.2017]
Holding: (1) The city of Miami is an "aggrieved person" authorized to bring suit under the Fair Housing Act; and (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit erred in concluding that the city's complaints, charging that the banks engaged in discriminatory conduct that led to a disproportionate number of
foreclosures and vacancies in majority-minority neighborhoods, which diminished the citys property-tax revenue and increased the demand for police, fire, and
other municipal services, met the FHA's proximate-cause requirement based solely on the finding that the city's alleged financial injuries were foreseeable
results of the banks' misconduct; proximate cause under the FHA requires some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged;
the lower courts should define, in the first instance, the contours of proximate cause under the FHA and decide how that standard applies to the city's claims
for lost property-tax revenue and increased municipal expenses.
Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corporation, No. 14-1055 [Arg: 11.8.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 1.18.2017]
Holding: Fannie Mae's sue-and-be-sued clause does not grant federal courts jurisdiction over all cases involving Fannie Mae.
Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, No. 15-1111 [Arg: 11.8.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.1.2017]
Holding: (1) The city of Miami is an "aggrieved person" authorized to bring suit under the Fair Housing Act; and (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th
Circuit erred in concluding that the city's complaints, charging that the banks engaged in discriminatory conduct that led to a disproportionate number of
foreclosures and vacancies in majority-minority neighborhoods, which diminished the citys property-tax revenue and increased the demand for police, fire, and
other municipal services, met the FHA's proximate-cause requirement based solely on the finding that the city's alleged financial injuries were foreseeable
results of the banks' misconduct; proximate cause under the FHA requires some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged;
the lower courts should define, in the first instance, the contours of proximate cause under the FHA and decide how that standard applies to the city's claims
for lost property-tax revenue and increased municipal expenses.
Sessions v. Morales-Santana, No. 15-1191 [Arg: 11.9.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.12.2017]
Holding: (1) The gender line Congress drew in Section 1409(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act -- which creates an exception for an unwed U.S.-citizen
mother, but not for such a father, to the physical-presence requirement for the transmission of U.S. citizenship to a child born abroad -- is incompatible with
the Fifth Amendment's requirement that the government accord to all persons "the equal protection of the laws"; and (2) because the Supreme Court is not
equipped to convert Section 1409(c)'s exception into the main rule displacing other relevant provisions of the statute, it falls to Congress to select a uniform
prescription that neither favors nor disadvantages any person on the basis of gender.
December Sitting
Beckles v. U.S., No. 15-8544 [Arg: 11.28.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.6.2017]
Holding: The Federal Sentencing Guidelines, including Section 4B1.2(a)'s residual clause, are not subject to vagueness challenges under the due process clause.
Moore v. Texas, No. 15-797 [Arg: 11.29.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.28.2017]
Holding: By rejecting the habeas court's application of current medical diagnostic standards and by following the standard under Ex parte Briseno, including
the nonclinical Briseno factors, the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals does not comport with the Eighth Amendment and Supreme Court
precedents.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204 [Arg: 11.30.2016 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1225(b) must be afforded bond
hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months; (2) whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to
mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months; and (3) whether, in
bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government
demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, whether the length of the aliens detention must be
weighed in favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.
Cooper v. Harris, No. 15-1262 [Arg: 12.5.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.22.2017]
Holding: (1) North Carolina's victory in a similar state-court lawsuit does not dictate the disposition of this case or alter the applicable standard of review; (2)
the district court did not err in concluding that race furnished the predominant rationale for District 1's redesign and that the state's interest in complying with
the Voting Rights Act of 1965 could not justify that consideration of race; and (3) the district court also did not clearly err by finding that race predominated in
the redrawing of District 12.
Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, No. 15-680 [Arg: 12.5.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.1.2017]
Holding: (1) The district court employed an incorrect legal standard in determining that race did not predominate in 11 of 12 new state legislative districts
drawn by the Virginia State Legislature after the 2010 census; and (2) the district court's judgment regarding District 75 -- that the legislature had good reason
to believe that a 55 percent target for black voting-age population was necessary to avoid diminishing the ability of black voters to elect their preferred
candidates, which at the time would have violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- is consistent with the basic narrow tailoring analysis explained
in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama.
Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation, No. 14-1538 [Arg: 12.6.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 2.22.2017]
Holding: The supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to liability under Section 271(f)(1) of the
Patent Act, which prohibits the supply from the United States of "all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention" for combination
abroad.
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corporation, No. 15-649 [Arg: 12.7.2016 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.22.2017]
Holding: (1) The petitioners -- a group of former truck-drivers for Jevic Transportation, the respondent -- have Article III standing; and (2) bankruptcy courts
may not approve structured dismissals of Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases that provide for asset distributions which do not follow ordinary priority rules established
by the Bankruptcy Code without the consent of affected creditors.
January Sitting
Nelson v. Colorado, No. 15-1256 [Arg: 1.9.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 4.19.2017]
Holding: The scheme under Colorado's Exoneration Act -- which permits the state to retain conviction-related assessments unless and until the prevailing
defendant institutes a discrete civil proceeding and proves her innocence by clear and convincing evidence -- does not comport with the 14th Amendment's
guarantee of due process.
Lewis v. Clarke, No. 15-1500 [Arg: 1.9.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 4.25.2017]
Holding: (1) In a suit brought against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, the employee, not the tribe, is the real party in interest and the tribe's
sovereign immunity is not implicated; and (2) an indemnification provision cannot, as a matter of law, extend sovereign immunity to individual employees who
would otherwise not be protected.
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, No. 15-1391 [Arg: 1.10.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.29.2017]
Holding: (1) The Supreme Court's review is limited to whether New York General Business Law Section 518 is unconstitutional as applied to the particular
pricing scheme that, before this court, petitioners, five New York businesses and their owners, have argued they seek to employ: a single-sticker regime, in
which merchants post a cash price and an additional credit card surcharge; (2) Section 518 prohibits the pricing regime petitioners wish to employ; (3) In
regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves, Section 518 regulates speech. On remand the court of appeals should determine whether
Section 518 survives First Amendment scrutiny as a speech regulation; and (4) Section 518 is not vague as applied to petitioners.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15-1406 [Arg: 1.10.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 4.18.2017]
Holding: When a federal court exercises its inherent authority to sanction bad-faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side's legal fees, the award is
limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the misconduct.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, No. 15-827 [Arg: 1.11.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 3.22.2017]
Holding: To meet its substantive obligation under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, a school must offer an "individualized education program"
reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.
Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 [Arg: 1.17.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions governing an alien's removal from the United States, is
unconstitutionally vague.
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, No. 16-348 [Arg: 1.17.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.15.2017]
Holding: The filing of a proof of claim that is obviously time barred is not a false, deceptive, misleading, unfair or unconscionable debt-collection practice
within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Matal v. Tam, No. 15-1293 [Arg: 1.18.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.19.2017]
Holding: The disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause.
Hasty v. Abbasi, No. 15-1363 [Arg: 1.18.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.19.2017]
Holding: (1) The limited reach of the Bivens action informs the decision whether an implied damages remedy should be recognized in this case; (2) considering
the relevant special factors in this case, a Bivens-type remedy should not be extended to the "detention policy claims" -- the allegations that the executive
officials and wardens violated the detainees' due process and equal protection rights by holding them in restrictive conditions of confinement, and the allegation
that the wardens violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by subjecting the detainees to frequent strip searches -- challenging the confinement conditions
imposed on the detainees pursuant to the formal policy adopted by the executive officials in the wake of the September 11 attacks; (3) the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 2nd Circuit erred in allowing the prisoner-abuse claim against Warden Dennis Hasty to go forward without conducting the required special-factors
analysis; and (4) the executive officials and wardens are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to respondents' claims under 42 U.S.C. 1985(3).
Ashcroft v. Abbasi, No. 15-1359 [Arg: 1.18.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.19.2017]
Ziglar v. Abbasi, No. 15-1358 [Arg: 1.18.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.19.2017]
February Sitting
McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248 [Arg: 2.21.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 4.3.2017]
Holding: A district court's decision whether to enforce or quash a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be reviewed for
abuse of discretion, not de novo.
Hernndez v. Mesa, No. 15-118 [Arg: 2.21.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether a formalist or functionalist analysis governs the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendments prohibition on unjustified deadly
force, as applied to a cross-border shooting of an unarmed Mexican citizen in an enclosed area controlled by the United States; (2) whether qualified immunity
may be granted or denied based on facts such as the victims legal status unknown to the officer at the time of the incident; and (3) whether the claim in
this case may be asserted under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents. CVSG: 03/01/2016.
Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark, No. 16-32 [Arg: 2.22.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.15.2017]
Holding: The Kentucky Supreme Court's clear-statement rule under which an agent could deprive her principal of the rights of access to the courts and trial
by jury through an arbitration agreement only if expressly provided in the power of attorney violates the Federal Arbitration Act by singling out arbitration
agreements for disfavored treatment.
Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, No. 16-54 [Arg: 2.27.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.30.2017]
Holding: In the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition
of "sexual abuse of a minor" requires the age of the victim to be less than 16.
Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194 [Arg: 2.27.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.19.2017]
Holding: The North Carolina statute, which makes it a felony for a registered sex offender "to access a commercial social networking Web site where the sex
offender knows that the site permits minor children to become members or to create or maintain personal Web pages," impermissibly restricts lawful speech in
violation of the First Amendment.
Dean v. U.S., No. 15-9260 [Arg: 2.28.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 4.3.2017]
Holding: 18 U. S. C. 924(c), which criminalizes using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, or possessing
a firearm in furtherance of such an underlying crime, does not prevent a sentencing court from considering a mandatory minimum imposed under that
provision when calculating an appropriate sentence for the predicate offense.
Coventry Health Care of Missouri v. Nevils, No. 16-149 [Arg: 3.1.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 4.18.2017]
Holding: (1) Because contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptions plainly "relate to ... payments with respect to benefits," as stated in the Section
8902(m)(1) of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, they override state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement; and (2) the regime Congress
enacted is compatible with the supremacy clause.
March Sitting
Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214 [Arg: 3.20.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether, in a regulatory taking case, the parcel as a whole concept as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York,
establishes a rule that two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels must be combined for takings analysis purposes.
Howell v. Howell, No. 15-1031 [Arg: 3.20.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.15.2017]
Holding: A state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the divorced spouse's portion of the veteran's retirement pay
caused by the veteran's waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefits.
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, No. 15-457 [Arg: 3.21.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.12.2017]
Holding: Federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. 1291 to review an order denying class certification (or, as in this case, an order striking
class allegations) after the named plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice.
Impression Products v. Lexmark Int'l, No. 15-1189 [Arg: 3.21.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.30.2017]
Holding: (1) Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in toner cartridges sold in the United States through its "Return Program"; and (2) Lexmark cannot sue
Impression Products for patent infringement with respect to cartridges Lexmark sold abroad, which Impression Products acquired from purchasers and
imported into the United States, because an authorized sale outside the United States, just as one within the United States, exhausts all rights under the Patent
Act.
County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, No. 16-369 [Arg: 3.22.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.30.2017]
Holding: The Fourth Amendment provides no basis for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's "provocation rule," which makes an officer's otherwise
reasonable use of force unreasonable if (1) the officer "intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation" and (2) "the provocation is an independent
Fourth Amendment violation."
Water Splash v. Menon, No. 16-254 [Arg: 3.22.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.22.2017]
Holding: The Hague Service Convention does not prohibit service of process by mail.
Saint Peters Healthcare System v. Kaplan, No. 16-86 [Arg: 3.27.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.5.2017]
Holding: Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, a defined-benefit pension plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization -- one
controlled by or associated with a church for the administration or funding of a plan for the church's employees -- qualifies as a "church plan," regardless of
who established it.
Dignity Health v. Rollins, No. 16-258 [Arg: 3.27.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.5.2017]
who established it.
Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, No. 16-74 [Arg: 3.27.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.5.2017]
who established it.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341 [Arg: 3.27.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.22.2017]
Holding: The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), provides that "[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where
the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." As applied to domestic
corporations, reside[nce] in Section 1400(b) refers only to the state of incorporation; the amendments to Section 1391 did not modify the meaning of Section
1400(b) as interpreted in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products.
Lee v. U.S., No. 16-327 [Arg: 3.28.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether it is always irrational for a noncitizen defendant with longtime legal resident status and extended familial and business ties to the United
States to reject a plea offer notwithstanding strong evidence of guilt when the plea would result in mandatory and permanent deportation.
Honeycutt v. U.S., No. 16-142 [Arg: 3.29.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.5.2017]
Holding: Because forfeiture pursuant to Section 853(a)(1) of the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984 is limited to property the defendant himself actually
acquired as the result of the crime, that provision does not permit forfeiture with regard to Terry Honeycutt, who had no ownership interest in his brother's
store and did not personally benefit from the illegal sales.
Overton v. U.S., No. 15-1504 [Arg: 3.29.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the petitioners' convictions must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland.
Turner v. U.S., No. 15-1503 [Arg: 3.29.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the petitioners' convictions must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland.
April Sitting
Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, No. 16-605 [Arg: 4.17.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.5.2017]
Holding: (1) A litigant seeking to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) must meet the requirements of Article III standing if the
intervenor wishes to pursue relief not requested by a plaintiff; and (2) the court of appeals is to address on remand the question whether Laroe Estates seeks
different relief than Steven Sherman: If Laroe wants only a money judgment of its own running directly against the town of Chester, then it seeks damages
different from those sought by Sherman and must establish its own Article III standing in order to intervene.
Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, No. 16-399 [Arg: 4.17.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a Merit Systems Protection Board decision disposing of a mixed case (one which challenges certain adverse employment actions and also
involves a claim under the federal anti-discrimination laws) on jurisdictional grounds is subject to judicial review in district court or in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
California Public Employees Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, No. 16-373 [Arg: 4.17.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the filing of a putative class action serves, under the American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah rule, to satisfy the three-year time limitation
in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members (Question granted in Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS, Inc.).
Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 16-529 [Arg: 4.18.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.5.2017]
Holding: Because disgorgement sought by the Securities and Exchange Commission operates as a penalty under 28 U.S.C. 2462, in that it is imposed by the
courts as a consequence for violating public laws and for punitive purposes, any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced
within five years of the date the claim accrued.
Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, No. 16-349 [Arg: 4.18.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.12.2017]
Holding: A company may collect debts that it purchased for its own account without triggering the statutory definition of a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
Weaver v. Massachusetts, No. 16-240 [Arg: 4.19.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a defendant asserting ineffective assistance that results in a structural error must, in addition to demonstrating deficient performance, show
that he was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness, as held by four circuits and five state courts of last resort; or whether prejudice is presumed in such cases,
as held by four other circuits and two state high courts.
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer, No. 15-577 [Arg: 4.19.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses when
the state has no valid Establishment Clause concern.
Davila v. Davis, No. 16-6219 [Arg: 4.24.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the rule established in Martinez v. Ryan and Trevino v. Thaler, that ineffective state habeas counsel can be seen as cause to overcome the
procedural default of a substantial ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim, also applies to procedurally defaulted, but substantial, ineffective assistance of
appellate counsel claims.
McWilliams v. Dunn, No. 16-5294 [Arg: 4.24.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.19.2017]
Holding: The Alabama courts' determination that James McWilliams received all the assistance to which Ake v. Oklahoma entitled him -- when certain
threshold criteria are met, access to a state-provided mental health expert who is sufficiently available to the defense and independent from the prosecution to
effectively "conduct an appropriate examination and assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense" -- was contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, clearly established federal law; and (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit should determine on remand whether the Alabama courts'
error had the "substantial and injurious effect or influence" required to warrant a grant of habeas relief under Davis v. Ayala, specifically considering whether
access to the type of meaningful assistance in evaluating, preparing, and presenting the defense that Ake requires could have made a difference.
BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, No. 16-405 [Arg: 4.25.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 5.30.2017]
Holding: (1) Section 56 of the Federal Employers' Liability Act -- which provides that "an action may be brought in a district court of the United States," in,
among other places, the district "in which the defendant shall be doing business at the time of commencing such action" -- does not address personal
jurisdiction over railroads; and (2) the Montana courts' exercise of general personal jurisdiction under Montana law does not comport with the 14th
Amendment's due process clause.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, No. 16-466 [Arg: 4.25.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.19.2017]
Holding: California courts lack specific jurisdiction to entertain the claims in this case brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents, because there is an
insufficient connection between the forum and the specific claims at issue.
Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 15-1195 [Arg: 4.26.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.12.2017]
Holding: Section 262(l)(2)(A) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 is not enforceable by injunction under federal law, but the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on remand should determine whether a state-law injunction is available; an applicant may provide notice of commercial
marketing under Section 262(l)(8)(A) prior to obtaining licensure.
Maslenjak v. U.S., No. 16-309 [Arg: 4.26.2017 Trans. /Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th, 7th and 9th
Circuits, that a naturalized American citizen can be stripped of her citizenship in a criminal proceeding based on an immaterial false statement.
Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc., No. 15-1039 [Arg: 4.26.2017 Trans. /Aud.; Decided 6.12.2017]
Holding: Section 262(l)(2)(A) of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 is not enforceable by injunction under federal law, but the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on remand should determine whether a state-law injunction is available; an applicant may provide notice of commercial
marketing under Section 262(l)(8)(A) prior to obtaining licensure.
Decided without oral argument

Bosse v. Oklahoma, No. 15-9173 [ Decided 10.11.2016]
Holding: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that it was not bound by the Supreme Courts holding in Booth v. Maryland that the
Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital-sentencing jury from considering testimony by a victims family members about the crime, the defendant, and the
appropriate sentence.
White v. Pauly, No. 16-67 [ Decided 1.9.2017]
Holding: The police officer did not violate clearly established law on the record described by the panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which
relied for its analysis on too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case.
North Carolina v. Covington, No. 16-1023 [ Decided 06.05.2017]
Holding: In ordering special elections and suspending residency requirements in the state constitution after holding that 28 majority-black districts drawn by
the North Carolina General Assembly were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the district court did not adequately grapple with the case-specific interests --
such as the severity and nature of the particular constitutional violation, the extent of the likely disruption to the ordinary processes of governance if early
elections are imposed, and the need to act with proper judicial restraint when intruding on state sovereignty -- on both sides of the remedial question.
Jenkins v. Hutton, No. 16-1116 [ Decided 6.19.2017]
Holding: On the facts of this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit was wrong to hold that it could review Percy Hutton's claim -- that the trial
court violated his due process rights during the penalty phase of his trial -- under the miscarriage-of-justice exception to procedural default.
Virginia v. LeBlanc, No. 16-1177 [ Decided 6.12.2017]
Holding: The Virginia trial court's ruling denying Dennis LeBlanc's motion to vacate his sentence in light of the Supreme Court's requirement in Graham v.
Florida that a state give juvenile offenders convicted of a nonhomicide crime "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity
and rehabilitation" -- a ruling which rested on the Virginia Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Angel v. Commonwealth that the state's geriatric release program
satisfies this requirement -- was not objectively unreasonable in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's current case law.
Rippo v. Baker, No. 16-6316 [ Decided 3.6.2017]
Holding: In reviewing Michael Rippo's application for state postconviction relief -- contending under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment that his
trial judge, the target of a federal bribery probe, could not have impartially adjudicated the case -- the Nevada Supreme Court did not ask the question required
by precedent: whether, considering all the circumstances alleged, the risk of bias was too high to be constitutionally tolerable.
2017 SCOTUSblog (click for license)

Switch to mobile site

Supreme Court Cases - 2011-2016

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Supreme Court Cases - 2011-2016

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

6/19/2017 Supreme Court Cases - 2016 - ScotusBlog

Search Blog or Docket

Editor's Note : The court will be issuing opinions on Thursday at 10 a.m.

October Term 2016

Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204 [Arg: 11.30.2016 Trans. /Aud.]

Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 [Arg: 1.17.2017 Trans. /Aud.]

Hernndez v. Mesa, No. 15-118 [Arg: 2.21.2017 Trans. /Aud.]

Lee v. U.S., No. 16-327 [Arg: 3.28.2017 Trans. /Aud.]

Overton v. U.S., No. 15-1504 [Arg: 3.29.2017 Trans. /Aud.]

Turner v. U.S., No. 15-1503 [Arg: 3.29.2017 Trans. /Aud.]

Weaver v. Massachusetts, No. 16-240 [Arg: 4.19.2017 Trans. /Aud.]

Davila v. Davis, No. 16-6219 [Arg: 4.24.2017 Trans. /Aud.]

Maslenjak v. U.S., No. 16-309 [Arg: 4.26.2017 Trans. /Aud.]

Decided without oral argument

White v. Pauly, No. 16-67 [ Decided 1.9.2017]

North Carolina v. Covington, No. 16-1023 [ Decided 06.05.2017]

Jenkins v. Hutton, No. 16-1116 [ Decided 6.19.2017]

Virginia v. LeBlanc, No. 16-1177 [ Decided 6.12.2017]

Rippo v. Baker, No. 16-6316 [ Decided 3.6.2017]

2017 SCOTUSblog (click for license)

Вам также может понравиться