Publications
Greetings, Court fans! It seems like only yesterday that we were parsing the Court’s Affordable Care Act decision together. We hope you’ve had a restful summer and are ready for another exciting Term. The Term officially kicked off this past week, but the Justices resumed adding to their docket a few weeks ago. First, let’s […]
Greetings, Court fans! It is that time of the year again – time for fall leaves, hot apple cider, pumpkins, and lots of cert grants. Today’s Update has two biggies for the patent lawyers out there and something for virtually everyone else. Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (11-796), deals with the patent exhaustion doctrine, asking “[w]hether […]
Greetings, Court fans! We hope those of you on the East Coast made it through Hurricane Sandy without too much damage or inconvenience. We now have a belated Halloween treat for you: more cases on the docket concerning election law, bankruptcy, tax, and habeas proceedings, and an SG invite on a Fair Housing Act question. […]
Greetings, Court fans! And so it begins. The Court issued its first opinion of the 2012 Term yesterday – a four-page per curiam decision in Lefemine v. Wideman (12-168) addressing the availability of attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 where a party has failed to secure any damages and has won only a prospective […]
Greetings, Court fans! Today we bring you the first signed decision of the Term, and several interesting cert grants. The decision came in United States v. Bormes (11-192), finding that the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(2) does not operate to waive the sovereign immunity of the United States with respect to alleged violations of […]
Greetings, Court fans! The spirit of agreement marches on: the Court is now three unanimous decisions for three. The most recent, a per curiam decision in Nitro-Lift Technologies v. Howard (11-1377), addressed an ever-popular topic among the Justices – the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Nitro-Lift and two of its employees entered into confidentiality and noncompetition […]
Greetings, Court fans! We’ve been slightly remiss in our Updates due to the crush of other December deadlines, but we’re back with two decisions, a bevy of other interesting items, and a New Year’s resolution to do better. The decisions came in Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States (11-597), on whether government-induced temporary […]
Greetings, Court fans! The Court is back from its holiday recess with three cert grants, and requests for the SG’s view on three other cert petitions. The Court added these cases to its docket: United States v. Davila (12-167), which asks: “Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that any degree of judicial participation […]
Greetings, Court fans! The Court is off to a quick start in the new year, with four decisions in two days. This Update will cover Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council (11-460), on what constitutes a “discharge of pollutants” under the Clean Water Act; and the consolidated cases of Ryan […]
Greetings, Court fans! We’re back, with something for everyone: federal jurisdiction junkies, conspiracy aficionados, and, yes, even the pun-loving admiralty practitioners among you. In Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. (11-982), the Justices ushered what otherwise might have been a hotly contested trademark claim out of the federal courts entirely. It all began when Nike sued […]
Greetings, Court fans! The Court has been quiet the past few weeks, so it’s the perfect time for us to catch up on cert grants, starting with a pair of preemption questions: The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 contains an express preemption clause at 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), providing that “a State [or] […]
Greetings, Court fans! The Court is on a tear this week, issuing four decisions Tuesday and another five today! This Update will tackle three of yesterday’s decisions, which addressed topics ranging from state-action immunity from antitrust laws, to the interplay of mootness doctrine with an international convention addressing child abductions, to when man’s best friend […]
Greetings, Court fans! We’re back to clear out more of last week’s deluge of decisions. This Update will wade through three criminal decisions – Bailey v. United States (11-770), considering how close is close enough to the scene of the search to allow police to seize an individual incident to the execution of a search […]
Greetings, Court fans! This Update will tackle Gabelli v. SEC (11-1274), holding that the SEC has 5 years (and no more) to bring a claim for civil penalties under the Investment Advisers Act; Evans v. Michigan (11-1327), finding that double jeopardy barred retrial of a criminal defendant even where the trial court had based its […]
Greetings, Court fans! We’re back to bring you two more decisions from last week, both fairly significant: Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (11-1025), a standing decision making it much less likely that government wiretapping under FISA will face scrutiny in an ordinary civilian, federal court; and Marx v. General Revenue Corp. (11-1175), clarifying when defendants […]
Greetings, Court fans! We’re back to round out our coverage of recent decisions and orders, including Amgen, Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (11-1085), on whether securities fraud plaintiffs must establish the materiality of the allegedly fraudulent statements at the class certification stage; Levin v. United States (11-1351), on the government’s waiver of […]
Greetings, Court fans! We’re back with the first game of a triple-header. In this round, we’ll bring you Florida v. Jardines (11-564), considering whether a police dog’s hunt for the scent of drugs constitutes a search for Fourth Amendment purposes (the Court loves dog sniff cases lately) and Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. […]
Greetings, Court fans! On to part two of this week’s reporting. After handing the plaintiffs’ securities class action bar a victory in Amgen just a few weeks back, the Court gave the class action defense bar a couple reasons to cheer with its decisions in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles (11-1450) and Comcast Corp […]
Greetings, Court fans! It’s time to get up to speed on some recent decisions. In this edition, we have US Airways v. McCutchen [11-1285], in which the Court held that equitable doctrines did not trump an ERISA plan’s terms, and Marshall v. Rodgers [12-382], which reversed habeas relief granted by the Ninth Circuit. Justice Kagan […]
Greetings, Court fans! This week, the Court shone the spotlight on the Sixth Amendment with a triple feature of cases involving the ineffective assistance of counsel. The first two have created a splash: In Missouri v. Frye (10-444) and Lafler v. Cooper (10-209), the Court ruled for the first time that defendants have a constitutional […]
Greetings, Court fans! We’re back with Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. (10-1150), a major patent decision addressing when inventions involving “laws of nature” can be patented; Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland (10-1016), on State employers’ immunity from suit under the “self-care” provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act; Sackett v. […]
Greetings, Court fans! The Justices apparently have no trouble multi-tasking, issuing 5 decisions and an order list this week, all while hearing the longest and most-watched arguments of the Term (and the possibly the decade) regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Monday brought technical arguments about whether the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits a […]
Greetings, Court fans! Today, we bring you Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper (10-1024), in which the Court determined that people harmed by violations of the federal Privacy Act may sue the government only for economic injuries, not mental or emotional distress, and Setser v. United States (10-7387), where the Court considered whether a district court […]
Greetings, Court fans! Today we bring you a double-header with decisions on arrestee searches, Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington (10-945), and immunity from § 1983 suits for grand jury witnesses, Rehberg v. Paulk (10-788). If the unlikely event that you’ve been thinking about committing a crime, even a very […]
Greetings, Court fans! We’re back to round out our coverage of the Court’s recent activity, with Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds (10-1261), considering tolling of the time to bring suits against corporate insiders for “short-swing” profits under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Roberts v. Sea-Land Services, Inc. (10-1399), on […]
Greetings, Court fans! In the spirit of jurisprudential unity, today we bring you two unanimous decisions: Filarsky v. Delia (10-1018), holding that a private individual retained by the government to carry out its work may seek qualified immunity under § 1983, and Kappos v. Hyatt (10-1219), in which the Court determined that unsuccessful patent applicants […]
Greetings, Court fans! The unanimous decisions continued last week with Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (10-844), holding that a generic drug manufacturer may bring a counterclaim against a brand-name drug manufacturer for providing an inaccurate description of the brand’s patent, and Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority (11-88), holding that the Torture Victims Protection […]
Greetings, Court fans! We are back with United States v. Home Concrete & Supply, LLC (11-139), a potentially significant administrative law decision masquerading as a ho-hum Internal Revenue Code statute of limitations case; Hall v. United States (10-875), where a divided Court wandered into the lush field of farm bankruptcy to hold that income tax […]
Greetings, Court fans! This Update will clear out one backlogged case: Wood v. Milyard (10-9995), an important read for habeas procedure junkies, and two of the Court’s five decisions last week: Astrue v. Capato (11-159), holding that children conceived via in vitro fertilization after the death of their biological father do not qualify for Social […]
Greetings, Court fans! As usual for this time of year, the Court has been busy issuing decisions. This Update will bring you: Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320), holding that Double Jeopardy does not apply when a jury continues deliberating after announcing that it is unanimous against guilt on certain charges, and the court eventually declares a […]