The U.S. Supreme Court resumed oral arguments on October 30, as it begins its November session. The cases before the justices this session involve significant issues of constitutional law including due process, free speech, and gun rights. Below is a brief summary of the cases before the Court: Culley v. Marshall: The case arises out of the seizure and retention of the plaintiffs’ vehicles under Alabama’s Civil Asset Forfeiture (CAF) statute. Neither plaintiff/owner was present when the vehicle was seized, and they were never charged with any crime. While the plaintiffs ultimately prevailed o ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court has now granted certiorari in two cases challenging the continued viability of its long-standing decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The two cases, which will be heard sometime in January, both ask the Court to overrule or at least curtail so-called “Chevron deference.” Precedent Established in Chevron Under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), courts must defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency is charged with admini ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in three cases last week. The issues before the Court included choice-of-law clauses, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s whistleblower protection, and racial gerrymandering. Below is a brief summary of the issues before the Court: Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co., LLC: In its seminal maritime insurance decision in Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co., 348 U.S. 310 (1955), the Supreme Court established that “maritime contracts are governed by federal admiralty law when there is an established federal rule ..read more

The U.S. Supreme Court returned to the bench on October 2, 2023. The justices heard three oral arguments in the first week of the new term and considered issues ranging from a civil rights tester’s right to sue to federal sentencing laws to the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The most closely watched case of the week was Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association, which challenges the mechanism used to fund the CFPB. The consumer watchdog has survived previous legal challenges and may again escape unscathed. In challenging t ..read more

Social media is poised to be a hot topic for the U.S. Supreme Court next term. The justices recently granted certiorari in two cases challenging state laws that restrict social media companies’ ability to moderate content on their platforms. The key issue before the Court is whether the Texas and Florida laws violate the First Amendment. Facts of the Cases The two cases before the Court, Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, involve laws enacted by Florida and Texas to regulate major social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly known as Twitter). While the st ..read more

In Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that challengers showed a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that an Alabama Congressional redistricting plan likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In reaching its decision, the Court confirmed that the Voting Rights Act prohibits discriminatory effects, not just discriminatory intent.  Facts of the Case Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 bans voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups ..read more

In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the college admissions programs of Harvard University and the University of North Carolina. The Court held that the raced-based policies violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. Facts of the Case Both cases involve long-running disputes brought by Students for Fair Admissions, whose mission is to “restore colorblind principles to our nation’s schools, colleges and universities.” In the Harvard case, the group alleged that the university’s admiss ..read more

In U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc., 598 U. S. ____ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the False Claims Act’s scienter element — which asks whether a defendant “knowingly” submitted a “false” claim to the government — refers to a defendant’s knowledge and subjective beliefs — not to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed. The Court’s decision was unanimous. Facts of the Case The petitioners filed a lawsuit alleging that respondents—SuperValu and Safeway—defrauded two federal benefits programs, Medicaid and Medicare. Both Medicaid and Medicare offer prescr ..read more

In Yegiazaryan v. Smagin,599 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff alleges a “domestic injury” as mandated under RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community for filing a private civil suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) when the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States. Facts of the Case Vitaly Smagin won a multimillion dollar arbitration award in 2014 against Ashot Yegiazaryan stemming from the misappropriation of investment funds in a joint real estate venture in Moscow. Because Yegia ..read more

In United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. ____ (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law that criminalizes “encouraging or inducing” an immigrant to come or remain in the United States unlawfully. According to the Court, the law does not run afoul of the First Amendment. Facts of the Case Helaman Hansen promised hundreds of noncitizens a path to U. S. citizenship through “adult adoption.” But that was a scam. Though there is no path to citizenship through “adult adoption,” Hansen earned nearly $2 million from his scheme. Hansen was charged with violating 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv ..read more