Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

On Monday, we expect orders from the June 22 Conference at 9:30 a.m. and the final opinions of the term at 10 a.m.
Our first interim Stat Pack for October Term 2016, prepared by Kedar Bhatia, is available at this link.
The Supreme Court proceedings and orders in the legal challenges to the administration’s entry ban are available at this link.

Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
16-1400Wilson v. Department of the Navy(1) Whether the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act specifically provides authority to the Merit Systems Protection Board to inquire as to the existence of a discriminatory pretext in the revocation of an employee's security clearance; (2) whether, where the employee alleges the revocation of the security clearance is for a discriminatory pretext, the inquiry as to the existence of this discriminatory pretext improperly intrudes upon the “merits” of the Executive's security clearance determination; and (3) whether the Merit Systems Protection Board can then provide a remedy under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act to an employee whose security clearance was revoked in violation of the Act. (Opinion by )
16-1398Victaulic Co. v. United States(1) Whether a qui tam realtor's complaint under the False Claims Act satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) by alleging nothing more than the opportunity for fraud, as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3d Circuit, or whether Rule 9(b) instead requires allegations of actual false claims, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 11th Circuits, or allegations of particular details of a scheme paired with reliable indicia of a false claim, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits; and (2) whether an “obligation” under the False Claims Act includes contingent duties that arise only after the exercise of discretion by government actors, so that an alleged failure to pay contingent marking duties is actionable as a knowing and improper avoidance of an obligation to pay the government. (Opinion by )
16-1391Marilley v. BonhamWhether the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV prohibits a State from preferentially subsidizing its own residents in the pursuit of a common calling governed by the clause, to the detriment of their nonresident competitors. (Opinion by )
16-1386Vaughan v. Anderson Regional Medical CenterWhether a plaintiff who has been retaliated against under 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is able to seek compensatory and punitive damages as potential remedies for her claim. (Opinion by )
16-1373Brown v. Haas(1) Whether a twenty-five month delay, during which the government negligently forgot about the defendant and lost important evidence, gives rise to a presumption of prejudice under Doggett v. United States; and (2) whether, to establish actual prejudice, a defendant must merely show that his defense was impaired as a result of the delay (as the Supreme Court, along with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits have held), or whether he must effectively demonstrate a likelihood that the outcome at trial would have been different but for the delay (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, and 7th Circuits have held). (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards