October Term 2020
View this list sorted by case name.
October Sitting
|
Holding: Texas’ motion to review the Pecos River Master’s determination – that New Mexico was entitled to a delivery credit for evaporated water stored at Texas’ request under the Pecos River Compact – is denied.
|
|
Holding: Because Adams has not shown that he was “able and ready” to apply for a judicial vacancy in the imminent future, he has failed to show a “personal,” “concrete” and “imminent” injury necessary for Article
III standing.
|
|
Holding: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993’s express remedies provision, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(c), permits litigants, when appropriate, to obtain money damages against federal officials in their individual capacities for violating litigants' right to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment.
|
|
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association,
No. 18-540
[Arg: 10.6.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 12.10.2020]
Holding: Arkansas’ Act 900 is not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
|
|
Holding: The connection between plaintiffs’ product-liability claims arising from car accidents occurring in each plaintiff’s state of residence and Ford’s activities in those states is sufficient to support specific jurisdiction in the respective state courts, even though the automobiles involved in the accidents were manufactured and sold elsewhere.
|
|
Holding: Google’s limited copying of the Java SE Application Programming Interface allowed programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a transformative program and constituted a fair use of that material under copyright law.
|
|
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court,
No. 19-368
[Arg: 10.7.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.25.2021]
Holding: The connection between plaintiffs’ product-liability claims arising from car accidents occurring in each plaintiff’s state of residence and Ford’s activities in those states is sufficient to support specific jurisdiction in the respective state courts, even though the automobiles involved in the accidents were manufactured and sold elsewhere.
|
|
Holding: The prosecutions of three military service members for rape were timely under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
|
|
Holding: The prosecutions of three military service members for rape were timely under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
|
|
Holding: The mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3), which operates as a “stay” of “any act” to “exercise control” over the property of the estate.
|
|
Holding: The application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure even if the person does not submit and is not subdued.
|
|
Holding: A nonpermanent resident seeking to cancel a lawful removal order fails to carry his burden of showing that he has not been convicted of a disqualifying offense when the statutory conviction on his record is ambiguous regarding whether a disqualifying offense formed the basis of his conviction.
|
November Sitting
|
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club,
No. 19-547
[Arg: 11.02.20 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.4.2021]
Holding: The deliberative process privilege gives protection from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act to in-house draft biological opinions that are both predecisional and deliberative, even if the drafts reflect the agencies’ last views about a proposal.
|
|
Holding: The U.S. Railroad Retirement Board’s refusal to reopen a former railroad worker's prior benefits determination is subject to judicial review.
|
|
Holding: The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit — holding that an offense with a mental state of recklessness may qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) — is reversed, and the case is remanded.
|
|
Holding: The Eighth Amendment does not require a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.
|
|
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
No. 19-123
[Arg: 11.04.20 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.17.2021]
Holding: Philadelphia’s refusal to contract with Catholic Social Services for the provision of foster care services unless CSS agrees to certify same-sex couples as foster parents violates the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.
|
|
Holding: A notice to appear sufficient to trigger the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996’s stop-time rule is a single document containing all the information about an individual’s removal hearing specified in 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1).
|
|
Holding: The district court's dismissal of King's claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act triggered the "judgment bar" in 28 U.S.C. § 2676 that precludes him from raising separate claims under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents on appeal.
|
|
Holding: Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s minimum essential coverage provision.
|
|
Holding: Plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s minimum essential coverage provision.
|
December Sitting
|
Holding: An individual “exceeds authorized access” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer — such as files, folders or databases — that are off-limits to him.
|
|
Holding: Because the challengers have not shown standing and because the claims presented are not ripe for adjudication, the district court’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
|
|
CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service,
No. 19-930
[Arg: 12.1.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.17.2021]
Holding: A suit to enjoin IRS Notice 2016–66 does not trigger the Anti-Injunction Act even though a violation of the notice may result in a tax penalty.
|
|
Holding: To plead facts sufficient to support a domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, plaintiffs must allege more domestic conduct than general corporate activity.
|
|
Holding: To plead facts sufficient to support a domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, plaintiffs must allege more domestic conduct than general corporate activity.
|
|
Holding: The jury-unanimity rule announced in Ramos v. Louisiana does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.
|
|
Holding: Judgment vacated and case remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for further proceedings consistent with Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp.
|
|
Holding: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3), incorporates the domestic takings rule, which recognizes that a foreign sovereign’s taking of its own nationals’ property is not a violation of international law.
|
|
Holding: To qualify as an “automatic telephone dialing system” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, a device must have the capacity either to store, or to produce, a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.
|
|
Holding: Because the Federal Housing Finance Agency did not exceed its authority under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 as a conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the anti-injunction provisions of the Recovery Act bar the statutory claim brought by shareholders of those entities; the Recovery Act’s structure, which restricts the President’s power to remove the FHFA director, violates the separation of powers.
|
|
Holding: Because the Federal Housing Finance Agency did not exceed its authority under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 as a conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the anti-injunction provisions of the Recovery Act bar the statutory claim brought by shareholders of those entities; the Recovery Act’s structure, which restricts the President’s power to remove the FHFA director, violates the separation of powers.
|
January Sitting
|
Holding: The detention of a noncitizen ordered removed from the United States who reenters without authorization is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231.
|
|
Holding: A request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element necessary for Article III standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.
|
|
AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission,
No. 19-508
[Arg: 1.13.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.22.2021]
Holding: Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act does not authorize the commission to seek, or a court to award, equitable monetary relief such as restitution or disgorgement.
|
|
National Association of Broadcasters v. Prometheus Radio Project,
No. 19-1241
[Arg: 1.19.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.1.2021]
Holding: The Federal Communications Commission’s 2017 decision to repeal or modify three of its media ownership rules was not arbitrary or capricious for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act.
|
|
BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore,
No. 19-1189
[Arg: 1.19.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.17.2021]
Holding: Where defendant energy companies premised 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d) removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, Section 1442, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all grounds for removal rejected by the district court.
|
|
Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project,
No. 19-1231
[Arg: 1.19.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.1.2021]
Holding: The Federal Communications Commission’s 2017 decision to repeal or modify three of its media ownership rules was not arbitrary or capricious for purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act.
|
February Sitting
|
Holding: Florida failed to establish that Georgia’s overconsumption of interstate waters was either a substantial factor contributing to, or the sole cause of, Florida’s injuries.
|
|
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's rule in immigration disputes — that in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility determination by an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals, a reviewing court must treat a petitioning noncitizen’s testimony as credible and true — cannot be reconciled with the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
|
|
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's rule in immigration disputes — that in the absence of an explicit adverse credibility determination by an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals, a reviewing court must treat a petitioning noncitizen’s testimony as credible and true — cannot be reconciled with the terms of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
|
|
Holding: Under the Fourth Amendment, pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always or categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home.
|
|
Holding: The unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
|
|
Holding: The unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
|
|
Holding: The unreviewable authority wielded by Administrative Patent Judges during inter partes review is incompatible with their appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to an inferior office.
|
|
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee,
No. 19-1257
[Arg: 3.2.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.1.2021]
Holding: Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and H.B. 2023 do not violate Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Act, and H.B. 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory
purpose.
|
|
Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee,
No. 19-1258
[Arg: 3.2.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.1.2021]
Holding: Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and H.B. 2023 do not violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and H.B. 2023 was not enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.
|
|
Holding: Principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed.
|
|
Holding: Principles of issue exhaustion do not require Social Security disability claimants to argue at the agency level that the administrative law judges hearing their disability claims were unconstitutionally appointed.
|
March Sitting
|
Holding: A California regulation granting labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property to solicit support for unionization constitutes a per se physical taking.
|
|
Holding: A tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law.
|
|
Holding: Neither the holding nor logic of Cady v. Dombrowski justifies the removal of Edward Caniglia’s firearms from his home by police officers under a “community caretaking exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
|
|
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System,
No. 20-222
[Arg: 3.29.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.21.2021]
Holding: The generic nature of a misrepresentation in connection with the sale of securities often is important evidence of price impact that courts should consider at class certification; defendants bear the burden of persuasion to prove a lack of price impact by a preponderance of the evidence at class certification.
|
|
Holding: Only a plaintiff concretely harmed by a defendant’s violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act has Article III standing to seek damages against that private defendant in federal court.
|
|
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston,
No. 20-512
[Arg: 3.31.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.21.2021]
Holding: The district court’s injunction pertaining to certain NCAA rules limiting the education-related benefits that schools may make available to student-athletes is consistent with established antitrust principles.
|
|
Holding: The district court’s injunction pertaining to certain NCAA rules limiting the education-related benefits that schools may make available to student-athletes is consistent with established antitrust principles.
|
April Sitting
|
Alaska Native Village Corporation Association v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation,
No. 20-544
[Arg: 4.19.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.25.2021]
Holding: Alaska Native Corporations are “Indian tribe[s]” under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and thus eligible for funding available to “Tribal governments” under Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
|
|
Yellen v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation,
No. 20-543
[Arg: 4.19.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.25.2021]
Holding: Alaska Native Corporations are “Indian tribe[s]” under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and thus eligible for funding available to “Tribal governments” under Title V of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
|
|
Holding: An individual who entered the United States unlawfully is not eligible to become a lawful permanent resident under 8 U.S.C. § 1255 even if the United States has granted the individual temporary protected status.
|
|
Holding: In felon-in-possession cases under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), an error under Rehaif v. United States is not a basis for plain-error relief unless the defendant first makes a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that he would have presented evidence at trial that he did not in fact know he was a felon.
|
|
Holding: In felon-in-possession cases under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), an error under Rehaif v. United States is not a basis for plain-error relief unless the defendant first makes a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that he would have presented evidence at trial that he did not in fact know he was a felon.
|
|
Holding: The well-grounded patent law doctrine of assignor estoppel applies only when the assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts explicit or implicit representations the assignor made in assigning the patent.
|
|
City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
No. 20-334
[Arg: 4.21.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.27.2021]
Holding: Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 does not permit a district court to alter a court of appeals’ allocation of the costs listed in subdivision (e) of that rule.
|
|
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s judgment, which vacated the district court’s injunction of California’s compelled disclosure of Schedule Bs as not narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in investigating charitable misconduct, is reversed, and the cases are remanded.
|
|
Holding: A settlement of environmental liabilities must resolve a specific liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 to give rise to a contribution action under that act.
|
|
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta,
No. 19-251
[Arg: 4.26.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 7.1.2021]
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s judgment, which vacated the district court’s injunction of California’s compelled disclosure of Schedule Bs as not narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in investigating charitable misconduct, is reversed, and the cases are remanded.
|
|
Holding: Each of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)’s statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack on a prior deportation order is mandatory.
|
|
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Refining, LLC v. Renewable Fuels Association,
No. 20-472
[Arg: 4.27.2021 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.25.2021]
Holding: Under the Renewable Fuel Program’s fuel blending requirements for domestic refineries, a small refinery that previously received a hardship exemption may obtain an “extension” under 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) even if the refinery did not seek a hardship exemption every year after initially doing so.in exemption coverage in a previous year.
|
|
Holding: A certificate of public convenience and necessity issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission pursuant to Section 717f(h) of the Natural Gas Act authorizes a private company to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or states.
|
|
Holding: The school district’s decision to suspend student Brandi Levy from the cheerleading team for posting to social media (outside of school hours and away from the school’s campus) vulgar language and gestures critical of the school violates the First Amendment.
|
May Sitting
|
Holding: A sentence reduction under the First Step Act is available only if an offender’s prior conviction of a crack cocaine offense triggered a mandatory minimum sentence.
|
Decided without oral argument
|
Holding: Under the unusual circumstances of this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit should not have ventured into such an uncertain area of state tort law without first using state certification procedures to seek guidance from the Louisiana Supreme Court.
|
|
Holding: Because any reasonable correctional officer should have realized that Trent Taylor’s conditions of confinement offended the Eighth Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in granting the officers qualified immunity.
|
|
Holding: A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit granting post-conviction relief to a man on Arizona's death row for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel violated the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.
|
|
Holding: Because it is unclear in this excessive force case whether the Eighth Circuit incorrectly thought the use of a prone restraint is per se constitutional so long as an individual appears to resist officers’ efforts to subdue him, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit’s judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to give the lower court the opportunity in the first instance to employ the careful, context-specific analysis required by this court’s excessive force precedent.
|
|
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred in revisiting on federal habeas review the decision of a Tennessee court supported by ample evidence that did not exceed the possibility of fairminded disagreement supporting that court’s conclusion.
|
|
Holding: The requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) that a habeas petitioner be “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” is not met if the state judgment is simply a necessary predicate to a federal conviction.
|
|
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in characterizing the Alabama court’s case-specific analysis as a “categorical rule” that any prisoner will always lose an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim if he fails to call and question trial counsel concerning his or her actions and reasoning; the Alabama court did not violate clearly established federal law when it rejected Reeves’ ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.
|
|
Holding: Administrative exhaustion of state remedies is not a prerequisite for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 takings claim when the government has reached a conclusive position.
|
|
Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services,
No. 21A23
[ Decided 8.26.2021]
Holding: The district court’s judgment – which vacated as unlawful the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s imposition of a nationwide moratorium on evictions of any tenants who live in a county that is experiencing substantial or high levels of COVID-19 transmission and who make certain declarations of financial need – is enforceable and the stay of the judgment is vacated.
|
Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument
|
Issue(s): Whether an impeachment trial before a legislative
body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i)
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
|
|
Cochran v. Gresham,
No. 20-37
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in concluding
that the secretary of health and human services may not authorize demonstration
projects to test requirements that are designed to promote the provision of health-care coverage by means of
facilitating the transition of Medicaid beneficiaries to
commercial coverage and improving their health.
|
|
Arkansas v. Gresham,
No. 20-38
Issue(s): Whether the approval by the secretary of
health and human services of the Arkansas
Works Amendment was lawful.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether respondents have a cognizable cause of action to obtain review of the acting secretary of defense’s compliance with a proviso in Section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act that the secretary’s authority to transfer funds internally between DOD appropriations accounts “may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress”; and (2) whether in 2019 the acting secretary exceeded his statutory authority under Section 8005 by transferring approximately $2.5 billion in response to a request from the Department of Homeland Security for counterdrug assistance under 10 U.S.C. 284, including in the form of construction of fences along the southern border of the United States.
|
Cases dismissed from merits docket
|
Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc.,
No. 19-963
[Arg: 12.8.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 1.25.2021]
Holding: Certiorari dismissed as improvidently granted.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security policy known as the Migrant Protection
Protocols is a lawful implementation of the
statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C); (2) whether MPP is consistent with any applicable
and enforceable non-refoulement obligations; (3) whether MPP is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking; and (4) whether the district court’s universal preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad.
|
