Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

On Monday morning the court hears oral argument in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission. Ronald Mann has our preview.
On Monday morning the court also hears oral argument in Pereira v. Sessions. Jennifer Chacon has our preview.
On Monday afternoon the court hears oral argument in Chavez-Meza v. United States. Susan Klein has our preview.

Briefly Mentioned :

Briefly Noted :

The Supreme Court will release orders from the April 20 conference on Monday at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.

October Term 2017

View this list sorted by sitting

Merits cases (to be) decided during OT 2017
Abbott v. Perez, No. 17-626 [Arg: 4.24.2018]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw Texas House of Representatives districts unless the governor called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas House map within three business days; (2) whether the Texas legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted Texas House of Representatives districts originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect; (3) whether any of the invalidated districts that were unchanged from the 2012 court-imposed remedial plan to the 2013 legislatively adopted plan (in Bell, Dallas and Nueces Counties) are unlawful, when the district court in 2012 issued an opinion explaining why these districts were lawful; and (4) whether the Texas Legislature had a strong basis in evidence to believe that consideration of race to maintain a Hispanic voter-registration majority was necessary in House District 90 in Tarrant County, when one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit told the legislature it had to keep the district’s population above 50 percent Spanish-surnamed-voter registration to avoid diluting Hispanic voting strength.
Abbott v. Perez, No. 17-586 [Arg: 4.24.2018]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw state congressional districts unless the governor called a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map within three days; (2) whether the Texas legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted a redistricting plan originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect; (3) whether the Texas legislature engaged in intentional vote dilution when it adopted Congressional District 27 in 2013 after the district court found, in 2012, that CD27 did not support a plausible claim of racially discriminatory purpose and did not dilute Hispanic voting strength because it was not possible to create an additional Hispanic opportunity district in the region; and (4) whether the Texas legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering in Congressional District 35 when it simply adopted the district unchanged as part of the court-ordered remedial plan.
Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., No. 16-1220 [Arg: 4.24.2018]

Issue(s): Whether a court may exercise independent review of an appearing foreign sovereign's interpretation of its domestic law (as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and District of Columbia Circuits), or whether a court is “bound to defer” to a foreign government's legal statement, as a matter of international comity, whenever the foreign government appears before the court (as held by the opinion below in accord with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit).
Artis v. District of Columbia, No. 16-460 [Arg: 11.1.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 1.22.2018]

Holding: In the instruction in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d), which provides that the “period of limitations for” refiling in state court a state claim dismissed along with related federal claims by a federal district court exercising supplemental jurisdiction, “shall be tolled while the claim is pending [in federal court] and for a period of 30 days after it is dismissed unless State law provides for a longer tolling period,” to “toll” a state-law statute-of-limitations period means to hold it in abeyance, i.e., to stop the clock.
Ayestas v. Davis, No. 16-6795 [Arg: 10.30.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.21.2018]

Holding: The district court’s denial of Carlos Ayestas’ request for funding for “reasonably necessary” services of experts, investigators and the like, under 18 U. S. C. §3599(f), to develop his claim that both his trial and state habeas counsel were ineffective was a judicial decision subject to appellate review under the standard jurisdictional provisions; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit did not apply the correct legal standard in affirming the denial of that request.
Benisek v. Lamone, No. 17-333 [Arg: 3.28.18 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court erred in holding that, to establish an actual, concrete injury in a First Amendment retaliation challenge to a partisan gerrymander, a plaintiff must prove that the gerrymander has dictated and will continue to dictate the outcome of every election held in the district under the gerrymandered map; (2) whether the majority erred in holding that the Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle burden-shifting framework is inapplicable to First Amendment retaliation challenges to partisan gerrymanders; and (3) whether, regardless of the applicable legal standards, the majority erred in holding that the present record does not permit a finding that the 2011 gerrymander was a but-for cause of the Democratic victories in the district in 2012, 2014, or 2016.
Byrd v. U.S., No. 16-1371 [Arg: 1.9.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter's permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.
Carpenter v. U.S., No. 16-402 [Arg: 11.29.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.
Chavez-Meza v. U.S., No. 17-5639 [Arg: 4.23.2018]

Issue(s): Whether, when a district court decides not to grant a proportional sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), it must provide some explanation for its decision when the reasons are not otherwise apparent from the record, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits have held, or whether it can issue its decision without any explanation so long as it is issued on a preprinted form order containing the boilerplate language providing that the court has “tak[en] into account the policy statement set forth in 18 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th and 10th Circuits have held.
China Agritech Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-432 [Arg: 3.26.18 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the rule of American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.
City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt, No. 16-1495 [Arg: 2.20.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when statements are used at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial.
Class v. U.S., No. 16-424 [Arg: 10.04.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 02.21.2018]

Holding: A guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a federal criminal defendant from challenging the constitutionality of the statute of conviction on direct appeal.
CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, No. 17-515 [ Decided 2.20.2018]

Holding: The Supreme Court has long held that collective-bargaining agreements must be interpreted “according to ordinary principles of contract law,” as stated in M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett. A contract is not ambiguous unless it is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, and the inferences made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit under its own precedent, International Union, United Auto, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Yard-Man Inc., cannot generate a reasonable interpretation because they are not “ordinary principles of contract law.” The only reasonable interpretation of the 1998 agreement between retirees and their former employer is that the health care benefits expired when the collective-bargaining agreement expired in May 2004.
Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027 [Arg: 1.9.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
Cox v. U.S., No. 16-1017 [Arg: 1.16.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding that petitioners' claims—which asserted that a judge's service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualifies him or her from continuing to serve on either the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii)—were moot; (2) whether these judges' service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualifies them from continuing to serve on the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii); (3) whether the judges' simultaneous service on both the U.S Court of Military Commission Review and the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals violates the appointments clause; and (4) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this case and Dalmazzi v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
Currier v. Virginia, No. 16-1348 [Arg: 2.20.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a defendant who consents to severance of multiple charges into sequential trials loses his right under the double jeopardy clause to the issue-preclusive effect of an acquittal.
Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439 [Arg: 11.28.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.20.2018]

Holding: The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 did not strip state courts of jurisdiction to adjudicate class actions alleging only 1933 Securities Act violations; nor did it authorize removing such suits from state to federal court.
Dahda v. U.S., No. 17-43 [Arg: 2.21.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): 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.
Dalmazzi v. U.S., No. 16-961 [Arg: 1.16.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding that the petitioner's challenge to Judge Martin T. Mitchell's continued service on the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, after he was nominated and confirmed to the Article I U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, was moot – because his CMCR commission had not been signed until after the U.S. Air Force CCA decided her case on the merits, even though she moved for reconsideration after the commission was signed; (2) whether Judge Mitchell's service on the CMCR disqualified him from continuing to serve on the AFCCA under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii), which requires express authorization from Congress before active-duty military officers may hold a “civil office,” including positions that require “an appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”; (3) whether Judge Mitchell's simultaneous service on both the CMCR and the AFCCA violated the appointments clause; and (4) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this case and Cox v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
Digital Realty Trust v. Somers, No. 16-1276 [Arg: 11.28.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 02.21.2018]

Holding: The anti-retaliation provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act does not extend to an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission.
District of Columbia v. Wesby, No. 15-1485 [Arg: 10.04.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 1.22.2018]

Holding: (1) The police officers had probable cause to arrest several partygoers who later sued for false arrest under the Fourth Amendment and District of Columbia law, and (2) the officers are entitled to qualified immunity.
Dunn v. Madison, No. 17-193 [ Decided 11.6.2017]

Holding: Because the state court’s determinations of law and fact were not “so lacking in justification” as to give rise to error “beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement,” Vernon Madison’s claim to federal habeas relief must fail.
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 16-1362 [Arg: 1.17.2018 Trans./Aud.; Decided 04.02.2018]

Holding: Because service advisors at car dealerships are “salesm[e]n . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles,” 29 U. S. C. §213(b)(10)(A), they are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirement.
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether an agreement that requires an employer and an employee to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration, and waive class and collective proceedings, is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, No. 16-300 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the collective-bargaining provisions of the National Labor Relations Act prohibit the enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act of an agreement requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis.
Florida v. Georgia, No. 22o142 [Arg: 1.8.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether Florida is entitled to equitable apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and appropriate injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh water into the Apalachicola Region. CVSG: 09/18/2014.
Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161 [Arg: 10.03.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
Hall v. Hall, No. 16-1150 [Arg: 1.16.2018 Trans./Aud.; Decided 03.27.2018]

Holding: When one of several cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is finally decided, that decision confers upon the losing party the immediate right to appeal, regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases remain pending.
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, No. 16-658 [Arg: 10.10.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 11.8.2017]

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred in treating as jurisdictional Rule 4(a)(5)(C)’s limitation on extensions of time to file a notice of appeal.
Hughes v. U.S., No. 17-155 [Arg: 3.27.18 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, as a four-justice plurality in Freeman v. United States concluded, a defendant who enters into a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is generally eligible for a sentence reduction if there is a later, retroactive amendment to the relevant Sentencing Guidelines range.
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980 [Arg: 1.10.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether 52 U.S.C. § 20507 permits Ohio's list-maintenance process, which uses a registered voter's voter inactivity as a reason to send a confirmation notice to that voter under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466 [Arg: 2.26.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204 [Arg: 10.03.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 02.27.2018]

Holding: Sections 1225(b), 1226(a) and 1226(c) of Title 8 of the U.S. Code do not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their detention; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit misapplied the canon of constitutional avoidance in holding otherwise.
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499 [Arg: 10.11.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, categorically forecloses corporate liability.
Kernan v. Cuero, No. 16-1468 [ Decided 11.6.2017]

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals erred when it held that “federal law” as interpreted by the Supreme Court “clearly” establishes that specific performance of the lower sentence that the parties had originally expected is constitutionally required.
Kisela v. Hughes, No. 17-467 [ Decided 04.02.2018]

Holding: Police officer Andrew Kisela is entitled to qualified immunity because his actions did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.
Koons v. U.S., No. 17-5716 [Arg: 3.27.18 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a defendant who is subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, but who substantially assisted the government and received a sentence below the mandatory minimum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), is eligible for a further sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), when the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowers the advisory sentencing guidelines range that would have applied in the absence of the statutory mandatory minimum.
Lagos v. U.S., No. 16-1519 [Arg: 4.18.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers costs for reimbursement under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act 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.
Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-1215 [Arg: 4.17.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor's ... financial condition” within Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. CVSG: 11/09/2017.
Leidos Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System, No. 16-581

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in holding – in direct conflict with the decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd and 9th Circuits – that Item 303 of Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation S-K creates a duty to disclose that is actionable under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, No. 17-21 [Arg: 2.27.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 17-130 [Arg: 4.23.2018]

Issue(s): Whether administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are officers of the United States within the meaning of the appointments clause.
Marinello v. U.S., No. 16-1144 [Arg: 12.6.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.21.2018]

Holding: To convict a defendant under 26 U. S. C. §7212(a) -- which forbids “corruptly or by force or threats of force . . . obstruct[ing] or imped[ing], or endeavor[ing] to obstruct or impede, the due administration of [the Internal Revenue Code]” -- the federal government must prove the defendant was aware of a pending tax-related proceeding, such as a particular investigation or audit, or could reasonably foresee that such a proceeding would commence.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111 [Arg: 12.5.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255 [Arg: 1.17.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether it is unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused's guilt over the accused's express objection.
Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784 [Arg: 11.6.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 02.27.2018]

Holding: The Bankruptcy Code allows trustees to set aside and recover certain transfers for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate, including certain fraudulent transfers “of an interest of the debtor in property”; the Bankruptcy Code also sets out a number of limits on the exercise of these avoiding powers, including the Section 546(e) safe harbor – which, inter alia, provides that a “trustee may not avoid a transfer that is a … settlement payment … made by or to (or for the benefit of) a … financial institution .. or that is a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a … financial institution … in connection with a securities contract.” In the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filed by Valley View Downs and its parent company, the only relevant transfer for purposes of the Section 546(e) safe harbor is the transfer that the trustee, FTI Consulting Inc., seeks to avoid, i.e., the transfer from Valley View to Merit Management Group for the sale of Bedford Downs Management’s stock.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435 [Arg: 2.28.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether Minnesota statute Section 211B.11, which broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place, is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476 [Arg: 12.4.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of states in contravention of New York v. United States.
Murphy v. Smith, No. 16-1067 [Arg: 12.6.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 02.21.2018]

Holding: In cases governed by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d), district courts must apply as much of a judgment in a federal civil rights suit as necessary, up to 25 percent, to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees.
National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, No. 16-299 [Arg: 10.11.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 1.22.2018]

Holding: Because the Waters of the United States Rule – a definition of the statutory term “waters of the United States” proffered by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers in a 2015 regulation – falls outside the ambit of Section 1369(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act, challenges to the rule must be filed in federal district courts.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140 [Arg: 3.20.18 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, No. 16-307 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether arbitration agreements with individual employees that bar them from pursuing work-related claims on a collective or class basis in any forum are prohibited as an unfair labor practice under 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), because they limit the employees' right under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in “concerted activities” in pursuit of their “mutual aid or protection,” 29 U.S.C. § 157, and are therefore unenforceable under the savings clause of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2.
New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-477 [Arg: 12.4.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a federal statute that prohibits adjustment or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of states in contravention of New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.
Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454 [Arg: 2.26.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, under the “rule of reason,” the government's showing that American Express' anti-steering provisions stifle price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform suffices to prove anti-competitive effects and thereby shifts to American Express the burden of establishing any pro-competitive benefits from the provisions.
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 [Arg: 11.27.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether inter partes review, an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents, violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.
Ortiz v. U.S., No. 16-1423 [Arg: 1.16.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell's service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualified him from continuing to serve on the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii); (2) whether Judge Mitchell's simultaneous service on both the CMCR and the AFCCA violated the appointments clause; and (3) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review Dalmazzi v. United States and Cox v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
Patchak v. Zinke, No. 16-498 [Arg: 11.7.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 02.27.2018]

Holding: David Patchak filed suit challenging the authority of the secretary of the Interior Department to take into trust a property (Bradley Property) on which Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians wished to build a casino. In an earlier appeal in the case, the Supreme Court held that the secretary lacked sovereign immunity and that Patchak had standing, and it remanded the case for further proceedings. Congress subsequently enacted the Gun Lake Act, which “reaffirmed as trust land” the Bradley Property, Section 2(a), and provided that “an action . . . relating to [that] land shall not be filed or maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly dismissed,” Section 2(b). The court of appeals properly affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Patchak’s lawsuit pursuant to that statute.
PEM Entities LLC v. Levin, No. 16-492

Issue(s): Whether bankruptcy courts should apply a federal rule of decision (as five circuits have held) or a state law rule of decision (as two circuits have held, expressly acknowledging a split of authority) when deciding to recharacterize a debt claim in bankruptcy as a capital contribution.
Pereira v. Sessions, No. 17-459 [Arg: 4.23.2018]

Issue(s): Whether, to trigger the stop-time rule by serving a “notice to appear,” the government must “specify” the items listed in the definition of a “notice to appear,” including “[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.”
Rosales-Mireles v. U.S., No. 16-9493 [Arg: 2.21.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, in order to meet the standard for plain error review set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v. Olano that "[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,’” it is necessary, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit required, that the error be one 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.”
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 16-534 [Arg: 12.4.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 02.21.2018]

Holding: Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 does not provide a freestanding basis for parties holding a judgment under Section 1605A to attach and execute against the property of a foreign state; rather, for Section 1610(g) to apply, the immunity of the property at issue must be rescinded under a separate provision within Section 1610.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. Tesla Energy Operations Inc., No. 17-368

Issue(s): Whether orders denying state-action immunity to public entities are immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, No. 16-969 [Arg: 11.27.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which provides that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner,” requires that Board to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner, or whether it allows that Board to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of only some of the patent claims challenged by the petitioner, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held.
Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 04.17.2018]

Holding: 18 U. S. C. §16(b), which defines “violent felony” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s removal provisions, is unconstitutionally vague.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, No. 17-494 [Arg: 4.17.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should abrogate Quill Corp. v. North Dakota's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement.
Sveen v. Melin, No. 16-1432 [Arg: 3.19.18 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the application of a revocation-upon-divorce statute to a contract signed before the statute's enactment violates the contracts clause.
Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, No. 22o141 [Arg: 1.8.2018 Trans./Aud.; Decided 03.05.2018]

Holding: The United States may pursue its complaint in intervention asserting a claim that New Mexico has violated the Rio Grande Compact.
Tharpe v. Sellers, No. 17-6075 [ Decided 1.8.2018]

Holding: On the unusual facts of this case, the court of appeals should not have rested its review of Keith Tharpe’s application for a certificate of appealability on the ground that it was indisputable among reasonable jurists that Barney Gattie’s service on the jury did not prejudice Tharpe.
Trump v. Hawaii, No. 16-1540

Issue(s): (1) Whether respondents' challenge to the temporary suspension of entry of aliens abroad under Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780 is justiciable; (2) whether Section 2(c)'s temporary suspension of entry violates the Establishment Clause; (3) whether the global injunction, which rests on alleged injury to a single individual plaintiff, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the challenges to Section 2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017.
Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965 [Arg: 4.25.2018]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Trump v. Int'l Refugee Assistance Project, No. 16-1436

Issue(s): (1) Whether respondents' challenge to the temporary suspension of entry of aliens abroad under Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780 is justiciable; (2) whether Section 2(c)'s temporary suspension of entry violates the Establishment Clause; (3) whether the global injunction, which rests on alleged injury to a single individual plaintiff, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the challenges to Section 2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017.
U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, No. 15-1509 [Arg: 10.31.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 03.05.2018]

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was right to review the Bankruptcy Court’s determination of non-statutory insider status for clear error (rather than de novo).
U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2 [Arg: 2.27.2018 Trans./Aud.; Decided 04.17.2018]

Holding: Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider's control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.
U.S. v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 17-312 [Arg: 3.26.18 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in asserting authority to review respondents' interlocutory challenge to pretrial physical restraints and in ruling on that challenge notwithstanding its recognition that respondents' individual claims were moot.
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, No. 17-387 [Arg: 3.21.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a court's exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcomes the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it.
Washington v. U.S., No. 17-269 [Arg: 4.18.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a treaty “right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations ... in common with all citizens” guaranteed “that the number of fish would always be sufficient to provide a ‘moderate living’ to the tribes”; (2) whether the district court erred in dismissing the state's equitable defenses against the federal government where the federal government signed these treaties in the 1850’s, for decades told the state to design culverts a particular way, and then filed suit in 2001 claiming that the culvert design it provided violates the treaties it signed; and (3) whether the district court’s injunction violates federalism and comity principles by requiring Washington to replace hundreds of culverts, at a cost of several billion dollars, when many of the replacements will have no impact on salmon, and plaintiffs showed no clear connection between culvert replacement and tribal fisheries.
WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011 [Arg: 4.16.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases in which patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). CVSG: 12/06/2017.
Wilson v. Sellers, No. 16-6855 [Arg: 10.30.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 04.17.2018]

Holding: A federal habeas court reviewing an unexplained state-court decision on the merits should “look through” that decision to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning; the state may rebut the presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below.
Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. U.S., No. 17-530 [Arg: 4.16.2018 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether stock that a railroad transfers to its employees is taxable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1).
Term Snapshot
Awards