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)Maslenjak v. United States (16-309), Weaver v. United States (16-240), McWilliams v. Dunn (16-5294), Turner v. United States (15-1503)
The Nine were back in action this morning, handing down three decisions in cases raising important issues of criminal law and procedure. Briefly: In Maslenjak v. United States (No. 16-309) (one of several “crimmigration” cases this term) the Court held that, where a naturalized citizen is alleged to have procured citizenship illegally, there must be a significant causal connection between the defendant’s alleged illegal act
Read More Maslenjak v. United States (16-309), Weaver v. United States (16-240), McWilliams v. Dunn (16-5294), Turner v. United States (15-1503)
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)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
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)