快活视频

 

United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted

Opinions Filed in June 2023

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

It is a violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution for a state to compel speech with which the speaker does not agree.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Groff v. DeJoy

鈥溾楳ore than a de minimis cost鈥︹ does not suffice to establish 鈥榰ndue hardship鈥 under Title VII.鈥 鈥淯ndue hardship鈥 under Hardison 鈥渋s shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer鈥檚 business.鈥

Area(s) of Law:
  • Employment Law

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

Under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, schools are prohibited from using race-based affirmative action in admissions decisions.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Counterman v. Colorado

The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some understanding of his statements鈥 threatening nature鈥 A recklessness standard is enough.

Area(s) of Law:
  • First Amendment

Moore v. Harper

Whether the Elections Clause of the Federal Constitution vests state legislatures with the authority to set rules governing federal elections free from restrictions imposed under state law.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

Samia v. United States

Whether the Confrontation Clause bars the admission of a nontestifying codefendant鈥檚 confession where (1) the confession has been modified to avoid directly identifying the nonconfessing codefendant and (2) the court offers a limiting instruction that jurors may consider the confession only with respect to the confessing codefendant.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Evidence

United States v. Texas

Challenges to an agency's exercise of enforcement discretion are not the kind redressable by federal courts.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Arizona v. Navajo Nation

In 1868, the United States set apart a large reservation 鈥渇or the use and occupation of the Navajo tribe鈥 within the new American territory in the western United States.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Indian Law

Jones v. Hendrix

A prisoner may not proceed under the general habeas corpus statute simply because of limitations imposed on filing additional alternative postconviction remedy motions. 28 U.S.C. 搂搂 2241, 2255(h)(1)-(2).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Habeas Corpus

Pugin v. Garland

An offense may "relat[e] to obstruction of justice" under 搂1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Immigration

Yegiazaryan v. Smagin

The RICO Act provides a private right of action to 鈥渁ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of鈥 RICO鈥檚 substantive provisions. 18 U.S.C. 搂1964(c).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Lora v. United States

When a federal court imposes multiple prison sentences, it can choose whether to run the sentences concurrently or consecutively under 18 U.S.C. 搂 3584. The exception under subsection (c) of 924 provides that, 鈥渘o term of imprisonment imposed on a person under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment.鈥 924(c)(1)(D)(ii).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sentencing

Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin

On appeal, the Court affirmed, holding the Bankruptcy code abrogates sovereign immunity for 鈥済overnmental unit[s],鈥 which include federally recognized Tribes like defendant. 11 U. S. C. 搂搂 106(a), 101(27).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Sovereign Immunity

Smith v. United States

Violations of the Constitution's Venue, Vicinage, and Double Jeopardy Clauses during the course of a criminal trial in Federal court should be remedied via retrial. 鈥淸T]he appropriate remedy for prejudicial trial error, in almost all circumstances, is simply the award of a retrial, not a judgment barring reprosecution.鈥 United States v. Morrison, 449 U.S. 361, 364 (1981).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Allen v. Milligan

The Gingles framework itself imposes meaningful constraints on proportionality. Forcing proportional representation is unlawful and inconsistent with this Court鈥檚 approach to implementing 搂2.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Election Law

Dubin v. United States

Under 18 U.S.C. 搂 1028A(a)(1), a defendant 鈥渦ses鈥 another person鈥檚 means of identification 鈥渋n relation to鈥 a predicate offense when this use is at the crux of what makes the conduct criminal. [T]he means of identification specifically must be used in a manner that is fraudulent or deceptive.

Area(s) of Law:
  • Criminal Law

Health & Hosp. Corp. v. Talevski

A statute creates a 搂1983-enforceable right when the statute 鈥渦nambiguously confer[s] individual federal rights. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 535 U.S. 273, 280 (2002).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Rights 搂 1983

Health and Hospital Corp. of Marion City v. Talevski

Any law created by Congress which confers rights to individuals may give rise to a cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C 搂 1983 unless doing so "would thwart any enforcement mechanism" of the law. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U. S., 273, 284 (2002).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Civil Law

Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174

On appeal, the Court held that Petitioner鈥檚 claims were not preempted by NLRA. Longshoremen v. Davis, 476 U. S. 380, 396 (1986) (The 鈥渁rguably鈥 protected [standard] . . . is not without substance). Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true, Respondent intentionally caused destruction of Petitioner鈥檚 property during the strike, clearly failing the 鈥渞easonable precautions鈥 test for a strike action to be protected by the NRLA. Bethany Medical Center, 328 N. L. R. B. 1094 (1999).

Area(s) of Law:
  • Labor Law

United States ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc.

The False Claims Act's scienter element refers to the subjective knowledge of the accused, not to the knowledge of an objective reasonable person. Even if a term is facially ambiguous, 鈥渆ither actual knowledge, deliberate ignorance, or recklessness will suffice鈥 to establish knowledge. Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U. S. 176, 187 (2016).听

Area(s) of Law:
  • Insurance Law

Haaland v. Brackeen

The Indian Child Welfare Act is upheld against constitutional challenges because Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution gives the federal government "virtually all authority over [...] Indian tribes." Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 62 (1996). Anti-commandeering principles do not apply when public and private entities are equally burdened. Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 584 U.S. ___ (2018) (slip op., at 19鈥20).听

Area(s) of Law:
  • Constitutional Law

Back to Top