Recent Articles from All Practice Groups
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Law Allowing Labor Unions Access To Private Land Deemed An Unconstitutional Taking
California enacted a regulation allowing labor organizations a limited duration right to access private farms to solicit support from farm workers thereon. Two such farmers filed suit seeking an injunction, arguing that the regulation was an unconstitutional per se physical taking without compensation. The district court and Ninth Circuit denied relief on the basis that the regulation did not allow ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Pursuit Of A Fleeing Misdemeanor Suspect Does Not Automatically Permit Warrantless Entry Into Home
The Fourth Amendment permits police officers to enter a home when “the exigencies of the situation” create a compelling law enforcement need. The question in Lange v. California was whether pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect categorically qualified as an exigent circumstance. In this case, the suspect was driving while listening to loud music and honking his horn. When an ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Cheerleader Wins First Amendment Case Involving Off-Campus Speech
When a high school student failed to make the varsity squad, she posted her frustrations on Snapchat using vulgar language. When the school learned of the posts, the student was suspended from the junior varsity squad in punishment. The student sued, arguing that her punishment violated her First Amendment rights under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Fine-Tunes Review Standard For Securities Class Actions
In Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, shareholders alleged securities fraud by Goldman Sachs and sought a class action certification. The shareholders invoked a presumption under Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), that investors are presumed to rely on the market price of a company’s security, which is presumed to reflect all of the company’s ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Appointments Clause Requires Administrative Patent Judge Decisions To Be Reviewable
The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires principal officers of the Executive Branch be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the issue was whether Administrative Patent Judges (APJs), who issue decisions on the validity of patents on behalf of the Executive Branch, as appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, were constitutional ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: NCAA Violated Anti-Trust Laws By Capping Educational Benefits To Student Athletes
Under the NCAA’s rules, student athletes are restricted from receiving fair compensation for their prowess on the field or court, while the lucrative broadcasting deals mean big money for the NCAA itself. The students challenged those rules under the Sherman Act as violative of anti-trust law. The district court found that the NCAA enjoyed monopsony power over the collegiate sports ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: First Amendment Trumps Same-Sex Discrimination In Foster Care
The city of Philadelphia entered into contracts with various agencies to provide foster care services, including Catholic Social Services (CSS). While other foster care services would refer children to same-sex or unmarried couples, CSS would not because of its religious mission. The city decided that CSS’s position violated the non-discrimination provision in its contract and stopped referring children to them ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Rejects Child Slavery Claims Under Alien Tort Statute
Six individuals from Mali alleged that they were trafficked as child slaves to the Ivory Coast to work on cocoa farms, and sued Nestle USA and other U.S.-based companies who bought cocoa from those farms, accusing those companies of aiding and abetting their enslavement. The individuals brought their claims under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows courts to exercise common-law ... Read More
TAGGED: Alien Tort Statute, extraterritorial, Nestle USA, Inc. v. Doe
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Justices Rejects Latest Challenge To Obamacare Under Lack Of Standing
Originally, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act required people to obtain minimum essential healthcare coverage, and instituted a monetary penalty for failure to do so. In a prior challenge to the Act, the Court ruled that the penalty was constitutional as a form of tax. Congress subsequently reduced the penalty to $0. Several states and two individuals sued again, ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Raises The Bar On Defendants Seeking Relief From Felon-In-Possession Of Firearms Sentences
To be convicted of being a felon-in-possession of a firearm, the government must prove that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and knew he was a felon at that time. The case of Greer v. United States involved two different situations, one where a defendant failed to request a jury instruction requiring the jury to find that he knew ... Read More
TAGGED: Felon-In-Possession, firearm, Greer v. United States
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Limits Sentencing Reductions Under Fair Sentencing Act To Mandatory Minimums
In 1986, Congress passed laws that punished possession of crack more severely than possession of cocaine, providing mandatory minimum sentences for smaller quantities of crack, but also allowing sentencing without a mandatory minimum as an alternative for those convicted of an unspecified amount of a drug. Tarahrick Terry was convicted of possessing an unspecified amount of crack under the alternative ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Reckless Action Does Not Qualify As “Violent Felony” Under Armed Career Criminal Act
The Armed Career Criminal Act permits a longer jail sentence for those found guilty three or more times of a prior “violent felony,” which is defined as a crime that involves “the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” The Court had previously decided that crimes of negligence lacked the necessary mens rea ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Temporary Protected Status Does Not Make Undocumented Immigrant Eligible For Green Card
After an immigrant from El Salvador illegally entered the United States in 1997, he was given Temporary Protected Status (TPS) by the government, which allowed him to remain the country while his home country was considered too dangerous to return to, and “shall be considered as being in, and maintaining, lawful status as a nonimmigrant.” Over a decade later, the ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Narrows Scope of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 imposes criminal liability on anyone who “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access.” 18 U.S.C. sec. 1030(a)(2). The Act defines “exceeds authorized access” as meaning that a person accesses a computer with authorization, but uses that access to obtain or alter information that the person was not authorized to ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Tribal Officers Have Authority Over Non-Indians On Public Roads Crossing Reservation Land
A police officer for the Crow Tribe approached a driver who had stopped on a portion of a public highway within the Crow Reservation. The officer observed the driver appeared not to be native and had watery, bloodshot eyes, and guns on the front seat. Without asking for identification that would resolve the driver’s status as a native, the officer ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Immigrant’s Testimony Not Entitled To Presumption Of Credibility In Removal Case
The case of Garland v. Ming Dai involved two consolidated appeals where in each an immigrant noncitizen was requesting that he not be removed to his respective country of origin. In each case, the immigrant gave testimony in support of their cause to stay in the United States, and in each case the immigration judge and the Bureau of Immigration ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: District Courts Have No Discretion To Reduce Appellate Costs
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 allows the taxation of certain appellate “costs” to the prevailing party, including “premiums paid for a bond or other security to preserve rights pending appeal.” In City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P., San Antonio obtained a judgment in the district court of roughly $55 million after a jury trial. Hotels.com opted to appeal ... Read More
|
Client Alert: CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service – A Rare Victory for the Taxpayer
On May 17, 2021, a unanimous Supreme Court issued its opinion in the long-awaited case interpreting the Anti-Injunction Act as applied to the Internal Revenue Service. CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service was a rare loss for the government. The Supreme Court held that CIC Services has jurisdiction to question the IRS’ ability to demand burdensome record-keeping information from ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Limitations on CERCLA Contribution Claims Only for CERCLA-Specific Liabilities
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) established the framework for who should pay for environmental issues. In particular, CERCLA allows “a person who has resolved its liability to the United States or a State” in a settlement to raise a contribution claim from another responsible individual. In 2004, the Territory of Guam settled litigation initiated ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Undocumented Immigrants face Higher Hurdle To Challenge Prior to Deportation
In 1988, a Mexican-national was convicted in California for felony DUI and then deported because at the time such a crime was an “aggravated felony” permitting removal. That same person illegally re-entered the United States and was indicted for unlawful reentry. The immigrant sought a collateral challenge of his prior removal order on the basis that the Court had since ... Read More
|
National Survey of COVID-19 Medical Malpractice Immunity Legislation (As of May 24, 2021)
(as of May 24, 2021) [1] The below survey of federal and state legislation, guidance, and executive action provides information regarding enacted and proposed legislation and executive orders issued to provide immunity protections for liability, in certain respects, to health care professionals, facilities, and volunteers in the course of their treatment of individuals during the course of the COVID-19 ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: “Community Caretaking Exception” To The Fourth Amendment Blocked From The Home
In Caniglia v. Strom, after Edward Caniglia agreed to submit to a psychiatric evaluation and was taken by ambulance to the hospital, officers searched his home and seized his firearms without a search warrant. Caniglia sued, but the district court and the First Circuit rejected his suit under the “community caretaking exception” to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Anti-Injunction Act Does Not Limit Challenge To IRS Reporting Requirement
The Anti-Injunction Act provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.” 26 U.S.C. sec. 7421(a). In IRS Notice 2016-66, the IRS required taxpayers to report information about certain insurance agreements, with civil tax penalties and criminal prosecution available in case of noncompliance. CIC ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Expands Appellate Review For Remand Orders
Normally, after a case is removed to federal court, a decision of the district court to remand the case back to the state court is not reviewable on appeal. However, under 28 U.S.C. sec. 1447(d), appellate review is available where the case for removal is based on the involvement of a federal officer (sec. 1442) or concerns civil rights (sec ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Closes Retroactivity Loophole For Criminal Procedure Decisions
Normally, new rules of criminal procedure do not apply retroactively. However, in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), the Court made an exception for “watershed” rule changes. Since then, however, the Court had never found a rule change that passed muster. In Edwards v. Vannoy, Thedrick Edwards was found guilty of certain felonies by non-unanimous juries in state court, ... Read More
|
Client Alert: Maryland Real Estate Commission Activity
Various bulletins and notices from the Maryland Real Estate Commission serve as important reminders: Real Estate Agents Not to be Paid by Title Company or Others – Must be Paid Through the Brokerage. Payment of real estate commissions to agents or associate brokers may not be from the settlement company's account. Instead, payments of commissions need to be paid through the real ... Read More
|
Client Alert: Wheeling v. Selene Finance, LP
The Court of Appeals of Maryland has held that a protected resident need not be deprived of actual possession as a condition to suit against a loan servicer under the 2013 residential eviction amendments set forth in Maryland Code Real Property Article § 7-113. In Wheeling v. Selene Finance, LP, the Court weighed-in on claims from two families regarding the ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Rejects Effectiveness Of Multipart Notices To Appear
Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Congress required the government to serve a notice to appear on any non-citizen it wishes to remove from the country. Under the Act, such a notice must be in writing and contain certain information, including any charges against the non-citizen, and the time and place of the removal proceedings ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Rejects Sex Offender’s Habeas Corpus Claim On Predicate State Conviction
After Sean Wright was convicted for sexual abuse in Alaska’s state courts, he failed to register his sex offender status in Tennessee when he moved there after his Alaskan prison sentence ended, in violation of federal law. During the federal proceedings, Wright filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Alaska, arguing that his Sixth Amendment rights were ... Read More
TAGGED: Habeas Corpus, 18 U.S.C. sec. 2254, Alaska v. Wright
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Federal Trade Commission Act Does Not Permit Awards Of Monetary Relief
In AMG Capital Management, LLC v. FTC, the Federal Trade Commission sued Scott Tucker and his companies for deceptive payday lending practices in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The district court granted an injunction to stop further such practices, and also invoked Section 13(b) of the Act to order Tucker to pay $1.27 billion in restitution and disgorgement ... Read More