Marissa Miller is a recent graduate of Yale Law School, where she served as the Executive Bluebook Editor of the Yale Law Journal. She is a native of the D.C. area and holds a B.A. in Linguistics from Stanford University. This fall, Marissa will clerk for Judge Neil M. Gorsuch on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
We are switching to a new system of collecting links for the round-up. If you have a story or post that you would like to have included in the round-up, please send a link to roundup [at] scotusblog.com, and we will consider it.
On Wednesday the justices heard oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii.
On Friday the justices will meet for their April 27 conference; our "petitions to watch" for that conference will be available soon.
Major Cases
Trump v. Hawaii (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Gill v. Whitford (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
Carpenter v. United States Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
Array
(
[0] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => encino-motorcars-llc-v-navarro-2
[post_title] => Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro
[ID] => 258572
)
[1] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => hall-v-hall
[post_title] => Hall v. Hall
[ID] => 254467
)
[2] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => henderson-v-united-states-2
[post_title] => Henderson v. United States
[ID] => 213757
)
[3] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => jesner-v-arab-bank-plc
[post_title] => Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
[ID] => 248080
)
[4] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => kisela-v-hughes
[post_title] => Kisela v. Hughes
[ID] => 262904
)
[5] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => merit-management-group-lp-v-fti-consulting-inc
[post_title] => Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.
[ID] => 250325
)
[6] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => oil-states-energy-services-llc-v-greenes-energy-group-llc
[post_title] => Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC
[ID] => 256593
)
[7] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => sas-institute-inc-v-iancu
[post_title] => SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu
[ID] => 252574
)
[8] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => lynch-v-dimaya
[post_title] => Sessions v. Dimaya
[ID] => 244801
)
[9] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => wilson-v-sellers
[post_title] => Wilson v. Sellers
[ID] => 252554
)
)
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro Because service advisors at car dealerships are “salesm[e]n . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles,” 29 U. S. C. §213(b)(10)(A), they are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirement.
Hall v. Hall When one of several cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is finally decided, that decision confers upon the losing party the immediate right to appeal, regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases remain pending.
Wilson v. Sellers A federal habeas court reviewing an unexplained state-court decision on the merits should “look through” that decision to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning; the state may rebut the presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below.
SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu When the United States Patent and Trademark Office institutes an inter partes review to reconsider an already-issued patent claim, under 35 U. S. C. §§311–319, it must decide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged.
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC Foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute.
Sessions v. Dimaya 18 U. S. C. §16(b), which defines “violent felony” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s removal provisions, is unconstitutionally vague.
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC Inter partes review -- which authorizes the United States Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider and cancel an already-issued patent claim, under 35 U. S. C. §§311–319 -- does not violate Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.
Array
(
[0] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => american-humanist-association-v-birdville-independent-school-district
[post_title] => American Humanist Association v. Birdville Independent School District
[ID] => 259765
)
[1] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => antonick-v-electronic-arts-inc
[post_title] => Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc.
[ID] => 259764
)
[2] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => association-des-eleveurs-de-canards-et-doies-du-quebec-v-harris
[post_title] => Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Québec v. Harris
[ID] => 209653
)
[3] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => butts-v-sellers
[post_title] => Butts v. Sellers
[ID] => 263077
)
[4] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => caraffa-v-carnival-corp
[post_title] => Caraffa v. Carnival Corp.
[ID] => 254362
)
[5] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => christensen-v-tennessee
[post_title] => Christensen v. Tennessee
[ID] => 261859
)
[6] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => city-bloomfield-new-mexico-v-felix
[post_title] => City of Bloomfield, New Mexico v. Felix
[ID] => 259429
)
[7] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => coachella-valley-water-district-v-agua-caliente-band-cahuilla-indians
[post_title] => Coachella Valley Water District v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
[ID] => 260171
)
[8] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => daleidan-v-national-abortion-federation
[post_title] => Daleidan v. National Abortion Federation
[ID] => 260192
)
[9] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => el-nahal-v-yassky
[post_title] => El-Nahal v. Yassky
[ID] => 250982
)
[10] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => elmore-v-holbrook
[post_title] => Elmore v. Holbrook
[ID] => 243232
)
[11] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => garcia-v-bloomberg
[post_title] => Garcia v. Bloomberg
[ID] => 253790
)
[12] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => georgiou-v-united-states
[post_title] => Georgiou v. United States
[ID] => 231013
)
[13] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => gordon-v-bank-of-america-n-a
[post_title] => Gordon v. Bank of America, N.A.
[ID] => 213021
)
[14] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => little-sisters-of-the-poor-home-for-the-aged-v-burwell
[post_title] => Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell
[ID] => 231204
)
[15] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => lockwood-andrews-newman-p-c-v-mason
[post_title] => Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C. v. Mason
[ID] => 254365
)
[16] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => loudoun-county-virginia-v-dulles-duty-free-llc
[post_title] => Loudoun County, Virginia v. Dulles Duty Free, LLC
[ID] => 265463
)
[17] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => luis-v-united-states
[post_title] => Luis v. United States
[ID] => 221255
)
[18] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => maricopa-county-arizona-v-villa
[post_title] => Maricopa County, Arizona v. Villa
[ID] => 265682
)
[19] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => moodys-corp-v-federal-home-loan-bank-of-boston
[post_title] => Moody's Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston
[ID] => 245997
)
[20] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => new-mexico-association-of-nonpublic-schools-v-moses
[post_title] => New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses
[ID] => 243046
)
[21] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => perez-guzman-v-sessions
[post_title] => Perez-Guzman v. Sessions
[ID] => 261671
)
[22] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => quarles-v-united-states
[post_title] => Quarles v. United States
[ID] => 264956
)
[23] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => reyes-v-sessions
[post_title] => Reyes v. Sessions
[ID] => 259959
)
[24] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => schulman-v-lexisnexis-risk-and-information-analytics-group-inc
[post_title] => Schulman v. LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc.
[ID] => 243819
)
[25] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => shakbazyan-v-united-states
[post_title] => Shakbazyan v. United States
[ID] => 251646
)
[26] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => smithkline-beecham-corp-v-king-drug-co-of-florence-inc
[post_title] => SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc.
[ID] => 239040
)
[27] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => sykes-v-united-states
[post_title] => Sykes v. United States
[ID] => 262690
)
[28] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => tilton-v-securities-exchange-commission
[post_title] => Tilton v. Securities and Exchange Commission
[ID] => 251632
)
[29] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => trent-v-united-states
[post_title] => Trent v. United States
[ID] => 265253
)
[30] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => trudeau-v-united-states
[post_title] => Trudeau v. United States
[ID] => 245338
)
[31] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => ultraflo-corp-v-pelican-tank-parts-inc
[post_title] => Ultraflo Corp. v. Pelican Tank Parts, Inc.
[ID] => 253793
)
[32] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => vanessa-g-v-tennessee-dept-of-childrens-services
[post_title] => Vanessa G. v. Tennessee Dep’t of Children’s Services
[ID] => 242382
)
[33] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => washington-alliance-technology-workers-v-department-homeland-security
[post_title] => Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. Department of Homeland Security
[ID] => 264149
)
[34] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => werner-v-wall
[post_title] => Werner v. Wall
[ID] => 251622
)
[35] => stdClass Object
(
[post_name] => wilchcombe-v-united-states
[post_title] => Wilchcombe v. United States
[ID] => 253872
)
)
Conference of April 27, 2018
Maricopa County, Arizona v. Villa Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which states that “the principal prosecuting attorney” of a state or locality may apply for an order authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2), allows a principal prosecuting attorney to delegate the task of applying for such an order to a subordinate.
Quarles v. United States Whether Taylor v. United States’ definition of generic burglary requires proof that intent to commit a crime was present at the time of unlawful entry or first unlawful remaining, as two circuits hold; or whether it is enough that the defendant formed the intent to commit a crime at any time while “remaining in” the building or structure, as the court below and three other circuits hold.
Trent v. United States Whether the exclusion of testimony on the specific length of the mandatory minimum sentence faced by a cooperating witness violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination.
On April 4, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with Justice Albie Sachs, formerly of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, for the launch of the Guarini Institute for Global Legal Studies at NYU School of Law.
Awards
Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.