United States Supreme Court (12 summaries)
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools
鈥淣othing in IDEA shall be construed to restrict鈥 the ability to seek 鈥渞emedies鈥 under other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities. Before filing a civil action under other federal laws seeking relief that is also available under IDEA, the procedures under [搂1415](f) and (g) shall be exhausted". 20 U.S.C. 搂1415(l).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Cruz v. Arizona
鈥淎n unforeseeable and unsupported state-court decision on a question of state procedure does not constitute an adequate ground to preclude this Court鈥檚 review of a federal question.鈥 Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 354 (1964).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta
The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian Country.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Concepcion v. United States
The First Step Act allows a district court to consider intervening changes of law or fact when exercising their discretion to modify a sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety
States may not invoke sovereign immunity as a legal defense to USERRA suits.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Federal Election Comm鈥檔 v. Ted Cruz
搂 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BRCA) limits political speech, abridging the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Patel v. Garland
Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretionary-relief proceedings under 8 U. S. C. 搂1255 and the other provisions enumerated in 8 U. S. C. 搂1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Shurtleff v. Boston
When a government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude speech based on 鈥渞eligious viewpoint鈥; doing so 鈥渃onstitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination.鈥 Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 112 (2001).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller
Emotional distress damages are not recoverable in private actions of Spending Clause antidiscrimination statutes.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Boechler v. Commissioner
The thirty-day limit to file a petition for review of a collection due process determination pursuant to 26 U. S. C. 搂 6330(d)(1) is non jurisdictional and subject to equitable tolling.
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law
United States v. Madero
Congress does not have to extend Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to residents of Puerto Rico. 42 U. S. C. 搂1382c(a)(1)(B)(i).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
鈥淭he State鈥檚 鈥榗ompelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election procedures鈥 would suffice to avoid 搂 2 liability.鈥 Purcell v. Gonzalez, 529 U. S. 1, 4 (2006).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States Supreme Court Certiorari Granted (1 summary)
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc.
Congress must make its intent to abrogate sovereign immunity unmistakably clear in the language of the statute. Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U. S. 62, 73.
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
9th Circuit Court of Appeals (26 summaries)
U.S. v. Amintobia
"In a case in which the illegal act by which a defendant procured naturalization was 鈥渁 false statement made to government officials, the Government must prove, inter alia, that the alleged false statement sufficiently altered the processes for investigating and adjudicating naturalization applications 鈥渁s to have influenced an award of citizenship.鈥 Maslenjak v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1918, 1928 (2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Smith v. Agdeppa
When other evidence in the record, 鈥渟uch as medical reports, contemporaneous statements by the officer, the available physical evidence, and any expert testimony proffered by the plaintiff鈥 is inconsistent with material evidence offered by the defendant, 鈥淸q]ualified immunity should not be granted.鈥 Newmaker v. City of Fortuna, 842 F.3d 1108, 1116 (9th Cir. 2016).
Area(s) of Law:- Qualified Immunity
U.S. v. Anderson
鈥淯nder the community caretaking exception, police officers may impound vehicles that jeopardize public safety and the efficient movement of vehicular traffic.鈥 Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858, 864 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, ET AL V. MICHAEL REGAN, ET AL
Before it can register a pesticide, EPA must conduct a 鈥渃ost-benefit analysis to ensure that there is no unreasonable risk created for people or the environment from a pesticide.鈥 Wash. Toxics Coal. v. EPA, 413 F.3d 1024, 1032 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
U.S. v. Fisher/Fisher
鈥淧robable cause exists if 鈥榠t would be reasonable to seek the evidence in the place indicated in the affidavit.'" United States v. Wong, 334 F.3d 831, 836 (9th Cir. 2003).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
D.R. v. Redondo Beach Unified Sch. Dist.
"To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities...are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily." 20 U.S.C. 搂 1412(a)(5)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
Salguero Sosa v. Garland
"Cumulative-effect review is essential where [a] single isolated incident may not rise to the level of persecution, but the cumulative effect of several incidents may constitute persecution.鈥 Korablina v. INS, 158 F.3d 1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1998).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Suski v. Coinbase, Inc.
Whether the court or the arbitrator decides arbitrability is an issue for judicial determination unless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. Oracle Am. Inc. v. Myriad Grp. A.G., 724 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2013) Issues of contract formation may not be delegated to an arbitrator. Ahlstrom v. DHI Mortg. Co., 21 F.4th 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Twitter, Inc. v. Paxton
Petitioner failed to establish standing in a First Amendment retaliation case without showing 鈥(1) an injury in fact..." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 157-158 (2014).
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Hooks v. Nexstar Broadcasting
鈥淲hile a district court may not presume irreparable injury, it may, however, make permissible inferences based on evidence of violations of labor law." Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334, 1362 (9th Cir. 2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Labor Law
U.S. v. Reiche
"A defendant is aware of the risk created by her conduct when she knows facts which, if considered and weighed in a reasonable manner, indicate a substantial and unjustifiable risk . . . , and the defendant knew of that risk.鈥 United States v. Rodriguez, 880 F.3d 1151, 1162 (9th Cir. 2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Smartt v. Kijakazi
"When faced with contradicted medical testimony, an ALJ must provide specific and legitimate reasons supported by substantial evidence in the record for rejecting a treating physician's opinion". Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 830 (9th Cir. 1995).
Area(s) of Law:- Disability Law
U.S. v. Nishida
A nonjudicial officer "may not decide the nature or extent of the punishment imposed upon a probationer...since under our constitutional system the right to impose the punishment provided by law is judicial. United States v Stephens, 424 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Galvez v. Jaddou
"To determine whether the district court abused its discretion in entering the injunction, look to whether the trial court identified and applied the correct legal rule to the relief requested.鈥 United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1263 (9th Cir. 2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Mendoza-Linares v. Garland
The 鈥淭ransit Bar,鈥 which provided that, subject to certain enumerated exceptions, an alien who arrived in the U.S. across the southern border 鈥渁fter transiting through at least one country outside the alien鈥檚 country of citizenship, nationality, or last lawful habitual residence en route to the United States鈥 was categorically ineligible for asylum. 8 C.F.R. 搂 208.13(c)(4) (2020)
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Hoyos v. Davis
To establish a prima facie case at Step One of a Batson analysis, Defendant bares the burden to show: (1) they are a member of a cognizable group; (2) the prosecutor removed members of that group; and (3) the totality of the circumstances gives rise to an inference that the prosecutor excluded jurors based on race. United States v. Esparza-Gonzalez, 422 F.3d 897, 904 (9th Cir. 2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
350 Montana v. Haaland
The arbitrary and capricious standard under the APA requires the court 'to determine whether the agency has taken a 'hard look' at the consequences of its actions, 'based [its decision] on a consideration of the relevant factors,' and provided a 'convincing statement of reasons to explain why a project's impacts are insignificant.' Barnes v. U.S. Dep't of Transp., 655 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
U.S. v. Holguin
It is within the court's "broad latitude" to deny a Daubert hearing. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 142 (1999).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
USSEC v. Murphy
"When someone places another鈥檚 capital at risk by trading securities as his or her agent, he or she is trading securities 鈥渇or the account of others,鈥 and is a 鈥渂roker鈥 subject to 搂 15(a)鈥檚 registration requirements. 15 U.S.C. 搂 78c(a)(4)(A)."
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Jane Doe V. USDC-NVL
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 搂 3771(d)(3), parties can agree to an extension of the 72-hour deadline with approval from the court of appeals, so long as the extension does not involve a stay or continuance of the underlying district court proceedings for more than five days.
Area(s) of Law:- Remedies
Lara-Garcia v. Garland
A dismissed conviction under the Federal First Offense Act (FFOA), or a similar conviction for simple possession of drugs, later expunged under a state鈥檚 rehabilitative statute, was not a 鈥渃onviction鈥 for purposes of immigration law. Lujan-Armendariz v. INS, 222 F.3d 728, 749 (9th Cir. 2000).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Hernandez v. Garland
Temporary protected status (TPS) does not constitute being 鈥渁dmitted in any status鈥 under the cancellation statute of 8 U.S.C. 搂 1229b(a). Sanchez v. Mayorkas, 141 S. Ct. 1809 (2021).
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
United States v. Chen
District courts may consider non-retroactive changes in sentencing law, in combination with other factors particular to the individual defendant, when analyzing extraordinary and compelling reasons for purposes of 搂 3582(c)(1)(A).
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
United States v. Reed
Harmless error review under Brecht shall be utilized when evaluating a habeas review of an instructional error where the jury is instructed on both a valid and invalid predicate offense and failed to specify which predicate forms the basis for a 搂924(c) conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Aquilar v. Walgreen Co.
Pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, for a decision to fall within the narrow class of orders satisfying the doctrine three conditions must be met, (1) "conclusiveness," (2) "separateness," and (3) "effective unreviewability." Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 108 (2009).
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
Patsalis v. Shinn
If Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) applies, habeas relief cannot be granted unless the state court鈥檚 decision was (1) 鈥渃ontrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,鈥 or (2) 鈥渂ased on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State Court proceeding.鈥 Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289, 292 (2013).
Area(s) of Law:- Post-Conviction Relief
Oregon Court of Appeals (1 summary)
Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland
Waiving a statutory right requires an 鈥渋ntentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege鈥 demonstrated by a clear, unequivocal, and decisive act of the party showing such a purpose.鈥 Waterway Terminals v. P. S. Lord, 242 Or 1, 26, 406 P.2d 556 (1965).
Area(s) of Law:- Contract Law