Four new decisions to start the week, including the first ever authored by Justice Gorsuch: Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. (No. 16-349), holding that a company seeking to collect its own debt is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. We’ll have a summary of that decision below, along with a per curiam AEDPA order and two holdover opinions
Read More Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. (16-349), Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton (16-74), Honeycutt v. United States, (16-142), Virginia v. LeBlanc (16-1177), and Order List
Kokesh v. SEC (16-529), Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates (16-605), and North Carolina v. Covington (16-1023)
The Court took care of some deck clearing this week, handing down five unanimous decisions in relatively uncontroversial cases, including Honeycutt v. United States (No. 16-142), on the applicability of federal forfeiture statutes to members of a conspiracy who did not personally acquire forfeitable property, and Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton (No. 16-74), on the scope of ERISA’s “church plan” exemption. We’ll
Read More Kokesh v. SEC (16-529), Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates (16-605), and North Carolina v. Covington (16-1023)Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer (15-577), California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities (16-373), and Davila v. Davis (16-6219)
This is the way October Term 2016 ends—not with a whimper, but a bang. After eight relatively sleepy months, the last day of the term brought enough excitement to warrant a T.S. Elliot misquote. To be sure, much of the bang came through end-of-term orders and cert grants for OT17, but the final decisions of the term packed something of a punch of their own.
Read More Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer (15-577), California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities (16-373), and Davila v. Davis (16-6219)Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (15-1189), County of Los Angeles v. Mendez (16-369), Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions (16-54) and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell (16-405)
The Court packed four new opinions into this holiday-shortened week, including the first case to be decided by nine justices in sixteen months. In that case, BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell (No. 16-405), The Nine held that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act does not create a special rule authorizing jurisdiction over railroads in any state in which they happen to do business. Scroll down
Read More Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc. (15-1189), County of Los Angeles v. Mendez (16-369), Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions (16-54) and BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell (16-405)Cooper v. Harris (15-1262), TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Grp. (16-341) and Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon (16-254)
We’re back with summaries of the three decisions handed down this past week, beginning with a major ruling on racial gerrymandering. Cooper v. Harris (15-1262) is one of two significant redistricting cases that were argued on the same day in December, which together make it much easier for plaintiffs to make out a case of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. In the first, Bethune-Hill v. State Bd.
Read More Cooper v. Harris (15-1262), TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Grp. (16-341) and Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon (16-254)Kindred Nursing Centers L.P. v. Clark (16-32); Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson (16-348) and Howell v. Howell (15-1031)
The Court rang in the week with three more decisions—Cooper v. Harris (No. 15-1262), an important ruling clarifying the test for racial gerrymandering claims; TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (No. 16-1341), an important ruling clarifying the scope of the patent venue statue; and Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon (No. 16-254), a . . . ruling clarifying that the
Read More Kindred Nursing Centers L.P. v. Clark (16-32); Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson (16-348) and Howell v. Howell (15-1031)