October Term 2022

Holding: Recommendations in the Special Master’s First Interim Report concluding that the escheatment of certain financial instruments relevant to this case should follow the Federal Disposition Act are adopted to the extent they are consistent with the court’s opinion, and Delaware’s objections are overruled.

Holding: The Clean Water Act extends only to wetlands that have a continuous surface connection with “waters” of the United States — i.e., with a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7) — making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins.

Issue(s): Whether the state of Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States House of Representatives violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Holding: The effective date of an award of service-related disability compensation to a veteran of the United States military determined pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 5110(a)(1) and 5110(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling.

Holding: The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit — affirming the dismissal of a complaint challenging California’s Proposition 12 under a dormant commerce clause rationale not grounded in an allegation that the law purposefully discriminates against out-of-state economic interests — is affirmed.

Holding: When a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 procedural due process claim begins to run when the state litigation ends, in this case when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Rodney Reed’s motion for rehearing.

Holding: Respondent Michael Hewitt was not an executive exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay guarantee; daily-rate workers, of whatever income level, qualify as paid on a salary basis only if the conditions set out in 29 C.F.R. § 541.604(b) are met.

Holding: The “purpose and character” of the Andy Warhol Foundation’s particular commercial use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph — 17 U.S.C. § 107(1) — does not favor AWF’s “fair use” defense to copyright infringement.

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.

Issue(s): Whether federal inmates who did not — because established circuit precedent stood firmly against them — challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute of conviction did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C § 2241 after the Supreme Court later makes clear in a retroactively applicable decision that the circuit precedent was wrong and that they are legally innocent of the crime of conviction.

Holding: The Arizona Supreme Court’s holding below — that Lynch v. Arizona did not represent a “significant change in the law” for purposes of permitting John Montenegro Cruz to file a successive petition for state postconviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g) — is not an adequate state-law ground supporting that judgment.

Holding: The Bank Secrecy Act's $10,000 maximum penalty for the nonwillful failure to file a compliant report accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis.

Holding: The statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.

Holding: The statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.

Issue(s): Whether the due process clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business in the state.

Issue(s): (1) Whether, in light of compelling historical evidence to the contrary, the Supreme Court should reexamine its holding that spending clause legislation gives rise to privately enforceable rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) whether, assuming spending clause statutes ever give rise to private rights enforceable via Section 1983, the Federal Nursing Home Amendments Act of 1987’s transfer and medication rules do so.

Issue(s): (1) Whether various provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 — namely, the minimum standards of Section 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f); the placement-preference provisions of Section 1915(a) and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions of Sections 1915(e) and 1951(a) — violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment; (2) whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge ICWA’s placement preferences for “other Indian families” and for “Indian foster home[s]”; and (3) whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and therefore consistent with equal protection.

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s right-to-control theory — under which the government can establish federal wire fraud by showing that the defendant schemed to deprive a victim of potentially valuable economic information necessary to make discretionary economic decisions — cannot form the basis for a conviction under the federal fraud statutes because the right to control is not grounded in a traditional property interest.

Holding: Jury instructions on the legal standard for finding that a private citizen owes the government a duty of honest services based on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s decision in United States v. Margiotta were erroneous.

Issue(s): (1) Whether state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law; (2) whether the Guidelines are contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) or 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), or otherwise violate the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) prevents the entry of an order to “hold unlawful and set aside” the guidelines under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).

Holding: The Quiet Title Act's 12-year statute of limitations is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule.

Holding: Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code — which restricts the effects of certain successful appeals of judicially authorized sales or leases of bankruptcy-estate property — is not a jurisdictional provision.

Issue(s): Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

Issue(s): Whether the government has authority to dismiss a False Claims Act suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that authority.

Holding: Pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor like Kate Bartenwerfer who is liable for her partner’s fraud cannot discharge that debt in bankruptcy, regardless of her own culpability.

Issue(s): Whether a state’s judicial branch may nullify the regulations governing the “Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives ... prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof,” and replace them with regulations of the state courts’ own devising, based on vague state constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.

Holding: The Federal Labor Relations Authority had jurisdiction over this labor dispute because a state National Guard acts as a federal agency for purposes of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their civilian role.

Issue(s): Whether a communication involving both legal and non-legal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege when obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.

Holding: The National Labor Relations Act did not preempt Glacier’s state tort claims related to the destruction of company property during a labor dispute where the union failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable and imminent danger to the property.

Holding: Nothing in the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act — including its jurisdictional provision, 48 U.S.C. § 2126(a) — categorically abrogates any sovereign immunity the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico enjoys from legal claims.

Holding: The district court has jurisdiction of this criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 3231, and the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's comprehensive scheme governing claims of immunity in civil actions against foreign states and their instrumentalities does not cover criminal cases.

Holding: Title 8 U.S.C. 1252(d)(1) — which requires noncitizens to “exhaus[t] all administrative remedies ... as of right” before challenging a Board of Immigration Appeals final order of removal in federal court — is not a jurisdictional provision and does not require noncitizens to request discretionary forms of review.

Holding: An Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for the denial of a free and appropriate education may proceed without exhausting the administrative processes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because the remedy sought is not one IDEA provides.

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s judgment — which held that plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of the court’s decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.

Holding: Plaintiffs’ allegations that the social-media-company defendants aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on a nightclub in Instanbul, Turkey fail to state a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 2333(d)(2).

Issue(s): Whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time they mention or otherwise recite someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.

Issue(s): (1) Whether six states have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the plan exceeds the secretary of education's statutory authority or is arbitrary and capricious.

Issue(s): (1) Whether two student-loan borrowers have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Education's student-debt relief plan; and (2) whether the department's plan is statutorily authorized and was adopted in a procedurally proper manner.

Holding: Notwithstanding opposition by the state of New York, New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the 1953 Waterfront Commission Compact.

Issue(s): (1) Whether the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, allowing the Navajo Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior to develop a plan to meet the Navajo Nation’s water needs and manage the mainstream of the Colorado River in the Lower Basin so as not to interfere with that plan, infringes upon the Supreme Court’s retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California; and (2) whether the Navajo Nation can state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the doctrine of Winters v. United States.

Issue(s): Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal.

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act, which provides civil remedies for infringement of U.S. trademarks, extraterritorially to Abitron Austria GmbH's foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.

Issue(s): (1) Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1), or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims; and (2) whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” and thus bars as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C).

Issue(s): Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.

Holding: Amgen’s two patent applications — purporting to cover all antibodies that bind and block the PCSK9 receptor involved in LDL cholesterol metabolism — fail to satisfy the Patent Act’s enablement clause, see 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed … under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment,” is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).

Issue(s): Whether the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue is an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th and 8th Circuits have held, or whether instead the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits have held.

Issue(s): Whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.

Holding: When the Internal Revenue Service issues a summons pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7602(a) in aid of collecting a tax liability, the exception to the notice requirement in Section 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) applies even if the delinquent taxpayer has no legal interest in the accounts or records summoned.

Holding: To state a claim under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, a plaintiff must allege the purchase of “such security” issued pursuant to a materially misleading registration statement.

Issue(s): To qualify as “an offense relating to obstruction of justice,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), must a predicate offense require a nexus with a pending or ongoing investigation or judicial proceeding?

Issue(s): (1) Whether the court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison; and (2) whether an employer may demonstrate “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee’s coworkers rather than the business itself.

Holding: The False Claims Act's scienter element — which asks whether a defendant “knowingly” submitted a “false” claim to the government — refers to a defendant’s knowledge and subjective beliefs — not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed.

Issue(s): Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence.

Issue(s): Whether the Bankruptcy Code expresses unequivocally Congress’ intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes.

Holding: A post-trial motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 is not required to preserve for appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment.

Issue(s): Whether a foreign plaintiff states a cognizable civil claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when it suffers an injury to intangible property, and if so, under what circumstances.

Holding: Geraldine Tyler plausibly alleges that Hennepin County unconstitutionally retained the excess value of her home above her tax debt in violation of the takings clause.