We’re back with the final four decisions of a busy week: American Hospital Association v. Becerra (No. 20-1114), where the Court rebuked the Department of Health and Human Services for its method of reimbursing hospitals for prescription drugs in 2018 and 2019 (but without rebuking its own beleaguered Chevron test); Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (No. 20-1573), in which the Court held that
Read More American Hospital Association v. Becerra (No. 20-1114), Viking River Cruises v. Moriana (No. 20-1573), George v. McDonough (No. 21-234), Golan v. Saada (No. 20-1034)
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (No. 20-493), Kemp v. United States (No. 21-5726), Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California (No. 20-1775)
We’re back with summaries of three more of this week’s cases: Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (No. 20-493), holding that Texas’s gaming regulations did not apply to an Indian Tribe’s gaming activities on Tribal land; Kemp v. United States (No. 21-5726), which holds that a district judge’s legal error is a “mistake” for purposes of relief from the judgment under Rule 60(b)
Read More Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (No. 20-493), Kemp v. United States (No. 21-5726), Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California (No. 20-1775)ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. (No. 20-401), Denezpi v. United States (No. 20-7622), Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (No. 19-896), Garland v. Gonzalez (No. 20-322),
As we’ve been harping on for the last few weeks, the Court’s OT21 term has crept along at a snail’s pace, with a nearly unprecedented number of cases yet to be decided this late in the term. But this week, the Court took a huge leap forward, issuing 11 (well, maybe 10.5) decisions in some of the Court’s less less-heralded cases, clearing some space for
Read More ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. (No. 20-401), Denezpi v. United States (No. 20-7622), Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez (No. 19-896), Garland v. Gonzalez (No. 20-322),Egbert v. Boule (No. 21-147)
Just like we promised, we’re back to talk about Egbert v. Boule (No. 21-147). As Court watchers like you likely know, in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents (1971), the Court authorized a damages cause of action against federal officials for alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment, parallel to the cause of action that would exist against state officials under 42 USC 1983.
Read More Egbert v. Boule (No. 21-147)Siegel v Fitzgerald (No. 21-441), Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (No. 21-309), Gallardo v. Marstiller (No. 20-1263)
With just four weeks to go before the end of the Court’s term and nearly three dozen cases yet to be decided, it’s going to be a busy June at One First Street. But this week, the Court took some small steps toward working through the remaining cases, issuing decisions in four argued cases. On Monday, the Court issued three: It unanimously held in Siegel
Read More Siegel v Fitzgerald (No. 21-441), Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon (No. 21-309), Gallardo v. Marstiller (No. 20-1263)Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez (No. 20-1009), Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (No. 21-328)
Two decisions to report this week, which illustrate the spectrum of accord and division among The Nine, depending on subject matter. In Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez (No. 20-1009), a bitterly divided Court ruled (6-3 on ideological lines) that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) precludes federal habeas courts from conducting evidentiary hearings or otherwise considering evidence beyond the state-court record
Read More Shinn v. Martinez Ramirez (No. 20-1009), Morgan v. Sundance, Inc. (No. 21-328)