And welcome back! October Term 2017 got underway this morning with argument in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (No. 16-285), a case concerning the enforceability of individual arbitration clauses in employment contracts. That could be a case of great significance to the employment and class-action bars. But for the labor lawyers out there, there was even bigger news late last week, when the Court
Read More Orders: October 2, 2017
Ziglar v. Abassi (15-1359) and Hernandez v. Mesa (15-118)
Told you we’d back soon. This time, we’ve got summaries of two decisions relating to the availability of the implied damages remedy for constitutional violations by federal officials announced in the Court’s 1971 decision, Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents.
Ziglar v. Abassi (15-1359) and its two companion cases arose in 2002, when a group of non-citizen, mostly Arab men detained in
Read More Ziglar v. Abassi (15-1359) and Hernandez v. Mesa (15-118)
Murr v. Wisconsin (15-214), Microsoft v. Baker (15-457), Lee v. United States (16-327), and Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board (16-399)
Though OT16 was gaveled to a close yesterday, the work of the clerk’s office continued this morning with the issuance of additional orders from yesterday’s “clean up conference,” including five new cases accepted for argument next Term. Our work continues, too, as we make our way through the long list of decisions handed down in the last few days of this Term. In this Update
Read More Murr v. Wisconsin (15-214), Microsoft v. Baker (15-457), Lee v. United States (16-327), and Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board (16-399)Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project (16-1436), Trump v. Hawaii (16-1540), Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n (16-111), Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers (16-1276), Parvan v. Smith (16-992), Hicks v. United States (16-7806), Peruta v. California (16-894), Bay Point Properties v. BP Properties (16-1077), and Mathis v. Shulkin (16-677)
It is finished. October Term 2016, that is. This morning, the Court handed down decisions in four of its six remaining cases for OT16 (with two cases that were argued before Gorsuch joined the Court being scheduled for reargument in the Fall, meaning it will be up to him to break an apparent 4-4 split in Jennings v. Rodriguez (No. 15-1204) and Sessions v. Dimaya
Read More Trump v. Int’l Refugee Assistance Project (16-1436), Trump v. Hawaii (16-1540), Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n (16-111), Digital Realty Trust, Inc. v. Somers (16-1276), Parvan v. Smith (16-992), Hicks v. United States (16-7806), Peruta v. California (16-894), Bay Point Properties v. BP Properties (16-1077), and Mathis v. Shulkin (16-677)
Matal v. Tam (15-1293)
Three more decisions this morning, leaving us with six to go (and a hint that perhaps a couple of these may be left undecided, fizzling out as 4-4 affirmances or being set for reargument next term). We’ll be back later with summaries of today’s cases, but here’s the blackletter: In Lee v. United States (No. 16-327), the Court held that a permanent resident who
Read More Matal v. Tam (15-1293)Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco, San Francisco County (16-466), Packingham v. North Carolina (15-1194), Sessions v. Morales-Santana (15-1191), Sandoz v. Amgen (15-1039) and Jenkins v. Hutton (16-1116)
The end-of-term rush is officially on. On Monday, the Court handed down six new decisions (including a per curiam summary reversal) and accepted a potential OT17 blockbuster for review. To summarize briefly: In Matal v. Tam (No. 15-1293), the Court unanimously (but with some disagreement on rationale) struck down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act under the First Amendment. In Bristol-Myers Squibb v.
Read More Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of San Francisco, San Francisco County (16-466), Packingham v. North Carolina (15-1194), Sessions v. Morales-Santana (15-1191), Sandoz v. Amgen (15-1039) and Jenkins v. Hutton (16-1116)