Tag Archives: SCOTUS opinions
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Rejects Comparison of State Offenses to Generic Offenses for Armed Career Criminal Act Enhancement
The Armed Career Criminal Act mandates a 15-year sentence for defendants that have prior convictions for a “serious drug offense” that “involve[es] manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance.” Eddie Lee Shular had six prior Florida convictions for selling and possessing cocaine with intent to sell. The federal trial court deemed those to be ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Police May Take Blood Test Of Unconscious Driver Without Warrant Under Exigent Circumstances Doctrine
After Gerald Mitchell was arrested for driving while intoxicated, his breath test came out three times over the legal limit. He then became unconscious. Wisconsin law presumed that an unconscious person consents to a blood test, so the police took him to a hospital where a blood test revealed his BAC well over the legal limit. During his prosecution, Mitchell ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Blocks The Citizenship Question From The 2020 Census Questionnaire For Now
The Constitution requires a census to be taken every 10 years, and Congress delegated that task to the Secretary of Commerce. In 2018, the Secretary announced that he would reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire, a question that had been included in almost every census up through 2000. Opposition to the question claimed that the question would ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Clarifies What “Confidential” Information is not Subject to a Freedom of Information Act Request
In Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, a newspaper filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Department of Agriculture requesting information about retail stores who participate in the national food stamp program. The Department declined to provide store-level data on the basis that it was “confidential” and thus precluded from disclosure under ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Permits The Bladensburg Peace Cross To Remain Standing
The Bladensburg Peace Cross was erected in 1925 on public land as a tribute to the lives of 49 soldiers from the local area who died in World War I. Certain atheistic groups filed suit in federal court, arguing that the cross violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The district court dismissed the case under the tests set forth in ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Retains Dual-Sovereignty Doctrine Exception To Double Jeopardy Rule
Under the Fifth Amendment, defendants may not be indicted for the same crime twice—otherwise known as double jeopardy. However, the Court had, since Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), held that double jeopardy did not occur when the same offense was prosecuted by different sovereigns, thus creating the “dual-sovereignty doctrine.” In Gamble v. United States, Terance Gamble was ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Time Served On A New Conviction Tolls The Supervised Release Period
While on supervised release after serving time for violating federal law, Jason Mont was arrested under state law for drug trafficking. He entered into a plea agreement. After his supervised release period expired, he was sentenced in state court, and credited with time served. The federal court then issued a warrant based on his violation of his supervised release. Mont ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Clarifies “Clear Evidence” Standard For Failure-To-Warn Claims
Merck manufactured the drug Fosamax to combat osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Merck’s scientists theorized that use of Fosamax might cause atypical femoral fractures, but the drug label approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1995 did not include a warning for those fractures. After 1995, evidence of such fractures started to develop. In 2008, Merck applied to the FDA ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Preserves Indian Treaty Hunting Rights
In 1868, the United States and the Crow Tribe entered into a treaty in which the U.S. got most of the Tribe’s land in modern-day Montana and Wyoming, in exchange for hunting rights in unoccupied land. In Herrera v. Wyoming, Tribe member Clayvin Herrera was charged with off-season hunting in the Bighorn National Forest, and Wyoming’s appellate courts affirmed ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Foreign States Must Be Served On Home Soil With Process
To gain personal jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, service of process must be accomplished, among other options, “by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched . . . to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned.” 28 U.S.C. sec. 1608(a)(3). In ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: National Park Service Cannot Regulate Navigable Waters
For decades, John Sturgeon drove a hovercraft on the Nation River to get to a moose hunting ground in Alaska. A portion of that river ran through the Yukon-Charley Preserve, which was a designated a conservation unit under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. The Act designated as public lands only and being part of such a unit ... Read More
|
Additional Practical Analysis: Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 20, 2019 in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP that a law firm hired to pursue a nonjudicial foreclosure under Colorado law was not a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). In a nonjudicial foreclosure, notice to the parties and sale of the property occur outside ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Manufacturers Have Duty To Warn Sailors Of Products That Require Asbestos Parts
In Air & Liquid System Corp. v. DeVries, a company manufactured equipment for three Navy ships that, as shipped, contained no asbestos, but required asbestos insulation or parts to work as intended. The Navy added the asbestos parts later when the equipment was installed on the ships. The equipment was put into use, releasing asbestos into the ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: No Copyright Infringement Suit Until A Copyright Is Registered
In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, Fourth Estate licensed works to a news website. The parties cancelled the licensing agreement, but the website did not remove the works. Fourth Estate sued for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, but its lawsuit was dismissed because Fourth Estate had only applied to register the works—the Register of ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Copyright Act’s Award Of Costs Limited To Those Available Under Typical Bill Of Costs
Oracle accused Rimini Street, Inc. of violating various copyrights, and won at trial. Under the Copyright Act, the district court awarded Oracle $12.8 million in litigation expenses under the Act. The district court acknowledged that it was awarding Oracle costs that were not within the six designated categories set forth under 28 U.S.C. secs. 1821 and 1920, ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Court Limits Immunity Afforded Under The International Organizations Immunity Act Of 1945
Originally, the International Organizations Immunity Act of 1945 (IOIA) granted foreign corporations virtually absolute immunity from suit. In 1952, the State Department adopted a more restrictive view, carving out commercial acts from that immunity. Congress then passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in 1976, which specifically excepted commercial activity with a sufficient nexus in the United States ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Eighth Amendment Bars Execution Of Defendant Without “Rational Understanding” Of The Reason For Execution
After he was sentenced to death for killing a police officer, Vernon Madison suffered a series of strokes and was diagnosed with dementia. In a prior series of appeals by Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court held that his mere inability to remember his crime did not establish that Madison was incompetent to be executed. When his execution was rescheduled on ... Read More
|
SCOTUS Opinion: Failure To File Appeal Is Constitutionally Deficient Even After Defendant Signs Appeal Waiver
In Garza v. Idaho, Garza signed two plea agreements for state crimes, each of which included a waiver of his appeal rights. After he was sentenced, Garza told his counsel that he wanted to appeal. His counsel did not file any appeal, telling Garza that his waivers made any such appeal “problematic.” After the deadline to appeal passed, Garza ... Read More
|
Court Upholds Challenge To Designation Of A “Critical Habitat”
Under the Endangered Species Act, when an animal is classified as “endangered,” the Secretary of the Interior must then designate the “critical habitat” of that animal for protection. In 2001, the dusky gopher frog was classified as endangered. The Secretary then designated the four areas where the frogs currently lived as critical habitats, along with another area, dubbed “Unit ... Read More