October Term 2022
View this list sorted by sitting.
Merits cases (to be) decided during OT 2022
|
Holding: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.
|
|
Holding: Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, two provisions of the Lanham Act that prohibit trademark infringement — 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) and § 1125(a)(1) — are not extraterritorial and extend only to claims where the infringing “use in commerce” is domestic.
|
|
Holding: Plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that the districting plan adopted by the state of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
|
|
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).
|
|
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v. Goldsmith,
No. 21-869
[Arg: 10.12.2022 Trans.; Decided 5.18.2023]
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the State applicants may intervene to challenge the District Court’s summary judgment order.
|
|
Holding: The 1868 treaty establishing the Navajo Reservation reserved necessary water to accomplish the purpose of the Navajo Reservation but did not require the United States to take affirmative steps to secure water for the tribe.
|
|
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: 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.
|
|
Holding: The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.
|
|
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: After determining that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. had made two legal errors in adjudicating petitioner’s case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s proper course was to remand the matter back to the FDIC for further consideration; the 6th Circuit erred by conducting its own review of the record and affirming the FDIC’s sanctions against petitioner based on a legal rationale different from the one adopted by the FDIC.
|
|
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: A district court must stay its proceedings while an interlocutory appeal taken pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 16(a) on the question of arbitrability is ongoing.
|
|
Holding: To establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the state must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness.
|
|
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: 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: Respondents lack Article III standing to assert a procedural challenge to the student-loan debt-forgiveness plan adopted by the Secretary of Education pursuant to Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003.
|
|
Holding: Under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)’s crime of “aggravated identity theft,” a defendant “uses” another person’s means of identification “in relation to” a predicate offense when the use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal.
|
|
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.
|
|
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo,
No. 22-96
[Arg: 1.11.2023; Decided 5.11.2023]
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.
|
|
Glacier Northwest v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters,
No. 21-1449
[Arg: 1.10.2023 Trans.; Decided 6.1.2023]
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: 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: Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.
|
|
Holding: In child custody proceedings governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act, the court affirms the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s conclusion that ICWA is consistent with Congress’s Article I authority, rejects petitioners’ anticommandeering challenges under the Tenth Amendment, and finds the parties lack standing to litigate their other challenges to ICWA’s placement preferences.
|
|
Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County, Indiana v. Talevski,
No. 21-806
[Arg: 11.8.2022 Trans.; Decided 6.8.2023]
Holding: The provisions of the Federal Nursing Home Amendments Act of 1987 at issue unambiguously create rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and private enforcement under Section 1983 is compatible with the FNHRA’s remedial scheme.
|
|
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.
|
|
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: When a defendant in a trademark suit uses the mark as a designation of source for its own goods or services — i.e., as a trademark — the threshold Rogers test for trademark infringement claims challenging so-called expressive works, see Rogers v. Grimaldi, does not apply, and the Lanham Act’s exclusion from liability for “[a]ny noncommerical use of a mark” does not shield parody, criticism, or commentary from a claim of trademark dilution.
|
|
Holding: The saving clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) does not allow a prisoner asserting an intervening change in the interpretation of a criminal statute to circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s restrictions on second or successive Section 2255 motions by filing a habeas petition under Section 2241.
|
|
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin,
No. 22-227
[Arg: 04.24.2023 Trans.; Decided 6.15.2023]
Holding: The Bankruptcy Code unequivocally abrogates the sovereign immunity of all governments, including federally recognized Indian tribes.
|
|
Holding: The bar on imposition of concurrent sentences in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii) does not apply to a sentence for a Section 924(j) conviction; a Section 924(j) sentence can run either concurrently with or consecutively to another sentence.
|
|
Holding: A Pennsylvania law requiring out-of-state companies that register to do business in Pennsylvania to agree to appear in Pennsylvania courts on “any cause of action” against them comports with the due process clause under Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co.
|
|
MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC,
No. 21-1270
[Arg: 12.5.2022 Trans.; Decided 04.19.2023]
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.
|
|
Holding: The federal elections clause does not vest exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules regarding federal elections and therefore did not bar the North Carolina Supreme Court from reviewing the North Carolina legislature’s congressional districting plans for compliance with North Carolina law.
|
|
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: Notwithstanding opposition by the state of New York, New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the 1953 Waterfront Commission Compact.
|
|
Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority,
No. 21-1454
[Arg: 1.9.2023 Trans.; Decided 5.18.2023]
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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: 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: An offense may “relate to” obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s definition of an “aggravated felony,” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(S), even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.
|
|
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: 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.
|
|
Holding: The admission of a nontestifying codefendant’s confession did not violate the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause where the confession as modified did not directly inculpate the defendant but used the descriptor “other person” and the jury was instructed to consider the confession only as to the codefendant.
|
|
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: 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.
|
|
Holding: The Constitution permits the retrial of a defendant following a trial in an improper venue conducted before a jury drawn from the wrong district.
|
|
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College,
No. 20-1199
[Arg: 10.31.2022 Trans.; Decided 6.29.2023]
Holding: The admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
|
|
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina,
No. 21-707
[Arg: 10.31.2022 Trans.; Decided 6.29.2023]
Holding: The admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
|
|
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: 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).
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
Holding: Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) — which criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” illegal immigration — forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.
|
|
Holding: Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge immigration-enforcement guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security that prioritize the arrest and removal of certain noncitizens from the United States.
|
|
U.S., ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources,
No. 21-1052
[Arg: 12.6.2022 Trans.; Decided 6.16.2023]
Holding: In a qui tam action filed under the False Claims Act, the United States may move to dismiss under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A) whenever it has intervened — whether during the seal period or later on; in assessing a motion to dismiss an FCA action over a relator’s objection, district courts should apply the rule generally governing voluntary dismissal of suits in ordinary civil litigation — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
|
|
Holding: The Quiet Title Act's 12-year statute of limitations is a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule.
|
|
Holding: A plaintiff alleges a “domestic injury” as required by RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community for filing a private civil suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act when the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States.
|
