Two new decisions this morning, including a major win for employers in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (No. 16-285), which held (5-4) that neither the Federal Arbitration Act nor the National Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from requiring employees to submit to arbitration agreements that waive class-action rights. Not to give it short shrift, the Court’s second opinion, Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren
Read More McCoy v. Louisiana (16-8255), Byrd v. United States (16-1371), Dahda v. United States (17-43), United States v. Sanchez-Gomez (17-312)
Murphy v. NCAA (16-476)
It’s not every day that a Supreme Court decision gets covered not only in the pages of The New York Times, but also ESPN.com and Sports Illustrated. But Murphy v. NCAA (No. 16-476), which struck down the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) and opened the door (for now) to legalized sports betting across the country, is no ordinary decision. Beyond green-lighting
Read More Murphy v. NCAA (16-476)
Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group (16-712), SAS Institute v. Iancu (16-969)
As we forecast last week, the downpour has commenced. The Court released five new decisions yesterday morning, including one of the most anticipated of the term, Murphy v. NCAA (No. 16-476), the New Jersey sports-betting case, in which it held (basically 6-3) that the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, which prohibits states from legalizing sports gambling, violates the “anti-commandeering principle” of the
Read More Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group (16-712), SAS Institute v. Iancu (16-969)
Sessions v. Dimaya (15-1498), Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC (16-499), U.S. v. Microsoft (17-2), Wilson v. Sellers (16-6855)
Been a bit, but better belated than benever. (Seriously, Henry Benever was a uniquely undistinguished Member of Parliament.) As we tread water nervously in anticipation of a deluge of decisions next week (and each remaining week of the term), it’s high tide time we worked our way through the current logjam. (We’re obviously counting on alliteration and bad puns to make up for the delay
Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (16-1362), Kisela v. Hughes (17-467), Hall v. Hall (16-1150)
Even though the Court is in the midst of a historically slow term (as measured by opinion output), we’ve managed to fall behind. We’ll take advantage of this off-week to get you caught up to speed with summaries of three outstanding (as in, overdue, if not necessarily superlative) decisions.
First up, in Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (No. 16-1362), the Court finally resolved
Read More Encino Motorcars v. Navarro (16-1362), Kisela v. Hughes (17-467), Hall v. Hall (16-1150)Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (15-1439), Marinello v. United States (16-1144)
When the Court indicated yesterday (as opposed to Friday, like usual) that there would be a “possibility of opinions” today (as opposed to Monday, like usual), there was some speculation that something interesting could be afoot. Perhaps, one theory went, The Nine wanted to rush out a decision in Gill v. Whitford (the partisan gerrymandering case argued in October) before it hears argument in Benisek
Read More Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund (15-1439), Marinello v. United States (16-1144)