Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC

Ritzen Group contracted to buy a piece of property from Jackson Masonry, but the sale was never completed. Ritzen claims that Jackson breached the contract by providing erroneous documentation about the property just before the deadline, while Jackson claims Ritzen breached by failing to secure funding to purchase the property by the deadline.
Ritzen sued Jackson for breach of contract in Tennessee state court, and just before trial, Jackson filed for bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay of the litigation under 11 U.S.C. § 362. Ritzen filed a motion to lift the stay, which the bankruptcy court denied, and Ritzen did not appeal the denial. Instead, Ritzen brought a claim against the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court ruled for Jackson, finding that Ritzen, not Jackson, breached the contract.
After this adverse ruling, Ritzen filed two appeals in the district court. The first appeal arose from the bankruptcy court’s order denying relief from the automatic stay (which Ritzen did not appeal at the time). The second appeal arose from the bankruptcy court’s determination that Ritzen, not Jackson, breached the contract. The district court ruled against Ritzen on both appeals; the first appeal was untimely filed, and the second one failed on the merits.
Ritzen appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which reviewed the bankruptcy court’s findings of fact under the abuse of discretion standard and its legal conclusions de novo. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding that Ritzen had missed two deadlines: the contract deadline, leading to its breach, and the appeal deadline, leading to its waiver of appeal.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63143.xml


A bankruptcy court’s order unreservedly denying relief from the automatic stay constitutes a final, immediately appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored the majority opinion on behalf of the unanimous Court.
The Court first looked to its own precedent in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, 575 U.S. 496 (2015), in which it held that a bankruptcy court’s order rejecting a proposed plan was not final because it did not conclusively resolve the relevant “proceeding.” Bankruptcy court orders are final only when they definitively dispose of discrete disputes within the bankruptcy case. Applying that reasoning to the facts of this case, the Court found that a bankruptcy court’s order unreservedly granting or denying relief from a bankruptcy’s automatic stay conclusively resolves a discrete dispute and thus qualifies as an independent “proceeding” within the meaning of §158(a).


Pedro Pablo Guerrero-Lasprilla, a native and citizen of Colombia, entered the United States in 1986 as a legal immigrant but was removed in 1998 due to felony drug convictions. In September 2016, Guerrero filed a motion to reopen, claiming that the 2014 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in Matter of Abdelghany rendered him eligible to seek relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c). The immigration judge denied Guerrero’s motion to reopen, finding it not timely filed. Given that Abdelghany was decided in 2014, the immigration judge found the two-year delay in filing the motion to reopen indicated Guerrero had not diligently pursued his rights as required for equitable tolling.
On appeal, the BIA affirmed the immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reopen, finding that the motion was untimely because it was not filed within 90 days of the final administrative decision. And the BIA agreed with the immigration judge that equitable tolling did not apply to extend the 90-day deadline. Guerrero argued that he could not have filed his motion to reopen until the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Lugo-Resendez v. Lynch, 831 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2016) (holding that a litigant is entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations if he establishes “that he has been pursuing his rights diligently and that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.”).
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit found it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that equitable tolling did not apply. Within the Fifth Circuit, under Penalva v. Sessions, 884 F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 2018) the question whether a litigant acted diligently in attempting to reopen removal proceedings for purposes of equitable tolling is a factual question, not a question of law, and thus is not reviewable.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63144.xml


The phrase “questions of law” in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Limited Review Provision, 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(D), includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts. Writing for a 7-2 majority, Justice Stephen Breyer concluded that the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ “factual” due diligence claims for equitable tolling purposes.
The Court first looked to the statute’s language, finding that nothing there precludes the conclusion that Congress used the term “questions of law” to refer to the application of a legal standard to settled facts. Courts repeatedly refer to mixed questions of law and fact as “questions of law.” The Court then considered the principle of statutory construction favoring judicial review of administrative action, finding that principle supported interpreting the court of appeals as having appellate jurisdiction in cases such as this one. Next the Court looked at the language immediately surrounding the phrase at issue, finding a “zipper clause,” which consolidates judicial review of immigration proceedings into one action in the court of appeals.” The Court then turned to the statutory history and relevant precedent, finding that they too supported an interpretation of “questions of law” as including the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion in which Justice Alito joined all but one subpart. Justice Thomas argued that despite being presented with a narrow question, the Court’s decision answers a much broader question and “effectively nullifies a jurisdiction-stripping statute” by disregarding the text and structure of the statute.


Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP

This case arises out of a complex procedural history involving a patent dispute between several parties and concerns not the merits of the proceedings but a procedural aspect of it.
The America Invents Act created “inter partes review” as a way of challenging a patent before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. One provision, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), precludes the institution of inter partes review more than one year after the petitioner “is served with a complaint” alleging infringement of the patent. The parties disagree over whether this one-year time bar applies when the underlying patent infringement suit has been voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.
The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held that it does apply. The court rejected the argument that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice restores the parties to their positions as though no legal proceedings had ever begun, concluding instead that a defendant served with a complaint remains “served” even if the civil action is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and thus does such a dismissal does not toll the statute of limitations.
Further, 35 U.S.C. § 315(d) provides that “the determination by the Director whether to institute an inter partes review under this section shall be final and nonappealable.” Notwithstanding this provision, the en banc Federal Circuit held that a decision to institute an inter partes review after finding that the § 315(b) time bar did not apply was appealable.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63145.xml


Section 314(d) precludes judicial review of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute inter partes review upon finding that §315(b)’s time bar did not apply. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the 7-2 majority opinion for the Court.
The text of 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), as well as the Court’s decision in Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. __ (2016), preclude a party from arguing on appeal that the agency should have refused “to institute an inter partes review.” A challenge under § 315(d) constitutes an appeal of the agency’s decision “to institute an inter partes review” and thus falls within the general prohibition of § 314(d). The majority (though without Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) found further support for this understanding in the statute’s purpose and design, which is “to weed out bad patent claims efficiently.” The Court found Click-to-Call’s claims to the contrary unpersuasive.
Justice Neil Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined in large part, arguing that the majority’s decision allows a “politically guided agency” to take the rightful property of an inventor and immunizes the agency’s action from judicial review.


Maine Community Health Options v. United States

Congress, in order to persuade the nation’s health insurance industry to provide insurance to previously uninsured or uninsurable persons, the legislation creating the Affordable Care Act provided that insurance losses over a designated percentage would be reimbursed, and comparable profits would be turned over to the government.
In reliance on the government’s commitment to reimburse them, the nation’s insurance industry provided the designated health insurance. However, when some carriers experienced significant losses, the government refused to appropriate the funds to pay the statutory shortfall and prohibited existing funds from being used for this purpose. As a result, the insurers did not receive reimbursement.
Several of these insurance carriers filed suit against the government seeking reimbursement. The courts denied them the relief they sought, in part relying on the “cardinal rule” disfavoring implied repeals, which applies with “especial force” to appropriations acts and requires that repeal not to be found unless the later enactment is “irreconcilable” with the former.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63146.xml


The insurance carriers in this case have a right to payment under the “Risk Corridors” program of the Affordable Care Act, Congress did not repeal the obligation of the federal government to pay the carriers, and the carriers can sue for payment under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion for an 8-1 majority. First, the Court considered whether the Risk Corridors program, Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act, obligated the federal government to pay participating insurers the full amount calculated by the statute. Congress may create an obligation directly through statutory language, which it did through the Risk Corridors program, in plain language. Thus, the legal duty of the government became a legal liability when the insurance carriers participated in the health care exchanges.
Second, the Court considered whether Congress impliedly repealed the obligation by passing appropriations riders. The Court first noted its “aversion to implied repeals,” especially in the context of appropriations. For an implied repeal, the government must show more than merely the failure to appropriate sufficient funds, which it did not do here.
Finally, the Court considered whether the insurance carriers properly brought suit under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims. Although the federal government is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents, it waived immunity for certain damages suits in the Court of Federal Claims through the Tucker Act. A claim falls within the Tucker Act’s immunity waiver if: (1) the claim “can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damage sustained,” (2) the obligation-creating statute does not provide its own detailed remedies, and (3) the Administrative Procedure Act does not provide an avenue for relief. In this case, the Court found that the insurance carriers’ claim satisfied this test and was thus properly brought under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined the majority opinion except as to the part discussing the legislative history of the appropriations riders.
Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority’s decision “infers a private right of action” where Congress did not expressly create one. Specifically, Justice Alito questioned the test the Court has used (and used in this case) to determine whether a claim may be brought against the United States under the Tucker Act.


The Official Code of Georgia Annotated is a compilation of Georgia statutes accompanied by various annotations, “consisting of history lines, repeal lines, cross references, commentaries, case notations, editor’s notes, excerpts from law review articles, summaries of opinions of the Attorney General of Georgia, summaries of advisory opinions of the State Bar, and other research references.” Although the Code itself states that the annotations are part of the official code and that the statutory portions “shall be merged with annotations,” Georgia law says that the annotations themselves do not have the force of law. The annotations are prepared pursuant to an agreement between Mathew Bender & Co., an operating division of the LexisNexis Group, and the State of Georgia, under which the state exercises pervasive supervisory control by way of its Code Revision Commission, a body established by the Georgia General Assembly. The Commission is comprised of the Lieutenant Governor, four members of the Georgia Senate, the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives, four additional members of the Georgia House of Representatives, and five members appointed by the president of the State Bar of Georgia.
Public.Resource.Org (PRO) is a non-profit organization with a mission of improving public access to government records and primary legal materials. In 2013, PRO purchased all 186 volumes of the print version of the OCGA and its supplements, scanned them, and uploaded them to its website to be freely accessible to the public. It also distributed digital copies to Georgia legislators and other organizations and websites.
The Commission sent PRO several cease-and-desist letters on the grounds that publication infringes on the State of Georgia’s copyright in their work, but PRO persisted. The Commission sued PRO in 2015 in federal district court, seeking injunctive relief. PRO acknowledged its publication and dissemination of the OCGA but denied that the State of Georgia holds an enforceable copyright in the Code. The district court ruled for the Commission, finding that because the annotations of the OCGA lack the force of law, they are not public domain material. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, finding that because of the way they are written and integrated into the “official” code, the annotations in the OCGA are attributable to the constructive authorship of the People and are thus intrinsically public domain material. To reach this conclusion, the Eleventh Circuit examined the identity of the public officials who created the work, the authoritativeness of the work, and the process by which the work was created—finding that each of these markers supported the conclusion that the People were constructively the authors of the annotations.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63147.xml


Under the government edicts doctrine, the annotations beneath the statutory provisions in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are ineligible for copyright protection. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 5-4 majority opinion.
Under the government edicts doctrine, judges cannot be authors of the works they produce in the course of their official duties, regardless of whether the material carries the force of law. The same reasoning applies to legislators and the works they produce. The “animating principle,” amply supported by precedent, is that “no one can own the law.”
First, the Court considered whether the annotations are created by legislators. Although the annotations were prepared by a private company, the work-for-hire agreement provides that Georgia’s Code Revision Commission is the sole “author” of the work. Because of the way it is created, receives funding and staffing, and operates, the Commission is an “arm” of the Georgia Legislature with “legislative authority” that includes “preparing and publishing the annotations.” This link is bolstered by the fact that the Commission brought this lawsuit “on behalf of and for the benefit of” the Georgia Legislature and the State of Georgia.
Then, the Court considered whether the annotations are created in the course of legislative duties. Although the annotations are not enacted into law through bicameralism and presentment, the Court cited a decision by the Georgia Supreme Court holding that the preparation of the annotations under Georgia law constitute an act of “legislative authority.”
The Court found unpersuasive Georgia’s arguments to the contrary. First, Section 101 of the Copyright Act, which lists “annotations” among the kinds of works eligible for copyright protection, refers only to annotations that represent an original work of authorship, which the annotations cannot be when legislators are the authors. Second, the fact that the Copyright Act excludes from copyright protection works by federal officials but does not mention state officials does not lead to the negative inference that state officials must be eligible to be authors. Neither the Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, a non-binding administrative manual, nor the overall purpose of the Copyright Act, supports Georgia’s position.
The Court pointed out that if it adopted Georgia’s position and allowed “everything short of statutes and opinions” to be copyrightable, then “States would be free to offer a whole range of premium legal works for those who can afford the extra benefit.” That outcome would force many people “to think twice before using official legal works that illuminate the law we are all presumed to know and understand.”
Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel Alito joined and Justice Stephen Breyer joined in part. Justice Thomas argued that the Court should leave to Congress the decision whether to exclude state legislators from copyright authorship and that the majority misunderstands the word “author.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Stephen Breyer joined, arguing that the annotations are not created in a legislative capacity because of key differences between judges and legislators.


Gregory Dean Banister was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. He filed a habeas petition asserting numerous constitutional violations, which the district court denied on the merits on May 15, 2017. He also requested a certificate of appealability (COA), which the district court also denied in the same order.
On June 12, 2017, Banister filed a motion to “amend or alter” the judgment of the district court pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which the court denied on the merits on June 20, 2017.
On July 20, 2017, Banister filed a notice of appeal and an application for a COA, which the district court “considered” despite its previous order denying the COA, but again denied on July 28, 2017. Banister then sought and received from the Fifth Circuit an extension of time to file a COA application. He filed a petition for a COA with the Fifth Circuit on October 11, 2017, and the court denied his petition, citing lack of jurisdiction, on May 8, 2018. The Fifth Circuit held that Banister’s purported 59(e) motion was, in fact, a successive habeas petition, which would not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), the Fifth Circuit noted that “alleging that the court erred in denying habeas relief on the merits is effectively indistinguishable from alleging that the movant is, under the substantive provisions of the statutes, entitled to habeas relief.”

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63148.xml


A Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), so Banister’s appeal was timely. Justice Elena Kagan authored the opinion for the 7-2 majority.
To determine what “second or successive application” means, the Court first turned to historical habeas doctrine and practice and the purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which governs federal habeas proceedings. In Browder v. Director, Department of Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257 (YYYY), decided before AEDPA, the Court held that Rule 59(e) applied in habeas proceedings. Although the language of the rule has since changed, those changes did not narrow the scope of that rule. In the fifty years since the adoption of the Federal Rules, only once has a court dismissed a Rule 59(e) motion as impermissibly successive, resolving all other cases on the merits. When Congress passed AEDPA, it gave no indication it intended to change this understood meaning of a successive application, nor do its purposes suggest such a change in meaning.
The Court pointed out that its decision in Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005), applied to Rule 60(b) and that Rule 60(b) is substantially different from Rule 59(e) in critical ways. While Rule 60(b) is a means of attacking a habeas court’s judgment, a Rule 59(e) motion is a one-time effort to point out alleged errors in a just-issued decision before taking a single appeal.
Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, arguing that because a Rule 59(e) motion asserts a habeas claim, it must be viewed as a “second or successive habeas petition” and be treated as such.


Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC

Since it was ceded to the United States in 1898, Puerto Rico has accumulated substantial debt, in large part due to its ambiguous legal status as a protectorate of the United States and the economically detrimental policies the United States has enacted over the decades. Exacerbated by a series of governmental financial deficits and a recession, Puerto Rico’s debt crisis came to a head in 2015, when its governor announced that the Commonwealth was in a “death spiral” and was unable to pay its debt. In June 2016, President Barack Obama signed into law the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act of 2016 (PROMESA), which gave him authority to appoint a seven-member Financial Oversight and Management Board that would have control over Puerto Rico’s budget and would negotiate the restructuring of its $125 billion indebtedness. President Obama appointed the seven-member board in August 2016 based on lists supplied by Republic and Democratic lawmakers.
A number of creditors and elected officials of Puerto Rico have been dissatisfied with the board and its decisions and brought a lawsuit challenging President Obama’s authority to appoint the board members. The challengers alleged that the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that the Senate confirm high-level federal officers and that the board members were within the scope of this Clause. The federal district court in Puerto Rico ruled against the creditors, finding the board is an instrumentality of the Commonwealth government established pursuant to Congress’s plenary powers under the Territorial Clause and that the board members are not “Officers of the United States.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, concluding that the Territorial Clause does not supersede the application of the Appointments Clause in an unincorporated territory and that the board members are “Officers of the United States” because: (1) they occupy “continuing positions,” (2) exercise “significant authority” that is the same or more than that exercised by other officers the U.S. Supreme Court has found to be “Officers of the United States,” and (3) exercise their authority “pursuant to the laws of the United States.” Moreover, these officers are “principal” officers subject to the Appointments Clause because they are answerable to and removable only by the President and are not directed or supervised by others who were appointed by the President with Senate confirmation.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63149.xml


The Appointments Clause constrains the appointments power as to all officers of the United States, including those who exercise power in or in relation to Puerto Rico, but the Clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of the members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board. Based on this conclusion, the Court had no reason to address the second question presented. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the opinion of the Court that was unanimous in the judgment.
The Appointments Clause of the federal Constitution is intended to allocate between the President and the Senate responsibility for selecting officers to hold high federal positions. Because of this purpose, the Appointments Clause should apply to all officers of the United States, even those with powers and duties related to Puerto Rico.
However, the Appointments Clause does not restrict the appointment of local officers that Congress vests with primarily local duties. When an officer has primarily local duties, he is not an officer of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause. The Board members have primarily local powers and duties, exemplified by the fact that the power of the Board is backed by Puerto Rico law rather than federal law. Indeed, the Board’s duty is to oversee the fiscal and budgetary development of Puerto Rico and to initiate bankruptcy proceedings in the interests of Puerto Rico. Consequently, the Appointments Clause does not constrain the appointments power as to the Board members.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment but based on interpretation of the “original public meaning” of the phrase “Officers of the United States” within the Appointments Clause.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment to explore issues the Court did not (and did not need) to address regarding the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States. Specifically, Justice Sotomayor pointed out that the history of that relationship calls into question whether the Board members may be territorial officers of Puerto Rico when “they are not elected or approved, directly or indirectly, by the people of Puerto Rico.”


Named plaintiff James Thole and others brought a class action lawsuit against U.S. Bank and other over alleged mismanagement of a defined benefit pension plan between 2007 and 2010. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Section 404, 405, and 406 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by breaching their fiduciary duties and causing the plan to engage in prohibited transactions with a subsidiary company. The plaintiffs argued that as a result of these prohibited transactions, the plan suffered significant losses and became underfunded in 2008.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the district court granted in part. However, the court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their claim that the defendants engaged in a prohibited transaction by investing in a subsidiary. In 2014, with the parties still in litigation, the plan became overfunded; that is, it contained more money than was needed to meet its obligations. The defendants raised the argument that the plaintiffs had not suffered any financial loss and moved to dismiss the remainder of the action. The district court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiffs lacked a concrete interest in any monetary relief the court could award to the plan if the plaintiffs prevailed. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63151.xml


The plaintiffs lack Article III standing to sue in federal court because, win or lose this case, they would still receive the exact same monthly benefits they are already entitled to receive. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion for the 5-4 majority.
As participants in a defined-benefit plan (as opposed to a defined-contribution plan, such as a 401(k)), the plaintiff retirees receive a fixed payment each month, notwithstanding any changes to the value of the plan or the investment decisions of the plan’s fiduciaries. As such, the poor decisions by the fiduciaries did not cause any actual injury to the plaintiffs in this case. Without concrete injury, the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the fiduciaries’ actions.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas joined the majority in full but wrote separately to opine that the Court’s precedents on standing unnecessarily complicate the issue by requiring the Court to engage with petitioners’ analogies to trust law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor argued that the Court’s decision precludes pensioners from bringing a federal lawsuit to stop or cure retirement-plan mismanagement until their pensions are on the verge of default. She cautioned that this outcome conflicts both with common sense and long-standing precedent.


Petitioner Noris Babb worked as a pharmacist for the Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida, since 2004. While there, she helped to develop the Geriatric Pharmacotherapy Clinic (GPC), which serves older veterans with diseases or disabilities common to individuals of advanced age with military service. In 2009, Pharmacy Management gave Babb an advanced scope (full practice authority) to prescribe medications without a physician, which was necessary for her position. In 2010, the VA rolled out a nationwide treatment initiative similar to the GPC Babb had helped develop. Against recommendations by Human Resources and despite requests from doctors, Pharmacy Management rejected applications by several current module pharmacists—all females over 50—and granted applications of two pharmacists under 40.
Two of the female pharmacists who were denied advancement filed Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints, and Babb provided statements and testified in support of their EEO claims. The pharmacists claimed that their non-selection purportedly for lack of advanced scopes was pretext for discrimination and that any justification for denying advanced scopes was pretext for discrimination as well.
Babb alleged that as a result of her participation in the EEO process, she was denied opportunities to participate in the new program and that Pharmacy Management required her to agree to a schedule that was unworkable for her department. Unable to meet this requirement, Babb’s advanced scope was removed and was consequently disqualified from promotion. A female pharmacist under 30 without an advanced scope was selected for the promotion.
Babb brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) alleging that she was the victim of gender-plus-age discrimination and that the VA retaliated against her for participating in protected EEO in violation of those laws. The district court granted summary judgment for the VA. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Babb argued that the district court erred in part by not allowing her to prove that illegal discrimination or retaliation was a “motivating factor” behind the VA’s refusal to promote her. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court, finding itself bound by precedent that federal sector employees’ claims under ADEA and Title VII require that the plaintiff show discrimination or retaliation is a “but for” factor in the adverse personnel action.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63153.xml


The federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), requires that age not be taken into consideration at all in making personnel actions, but if age is a but-for cause of the personnel action, that fact may be important in determining the remedy to which the plaintiff is entitled. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the 8-1 majority opinion of the Court. The relevant provision provides “All personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for employment who are at least 40 years of age . . . shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.” The Court found the plain meaning of the statute supports the reading that age does not need to be a but-for cause of an employment decision for there to be a violation. To reach this conclusion, the Court focused on several phrases as well as the syntax of the sentence. This interpretation is also consistent with the Court’s precedent interpreting the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the ADEA’s private-sector provision, and Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision because the language in those provisions is “markedly” different. The Court noted, however, that but-for causation is important in determining the appropriate remedy. For example, the plaintiffs cannot obtain compensatory damages without showing that age discrimination was a but-for cause of the employment decision. Remedies must be tailored to the injury, and the injury is measured in part by the causal relationship.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a concurring opinion in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined, pointing out that the Court’s decision does not foreclose claims arising from discriminatory processes (as distinct from decisions) and that the same provision may also permit damages remedies even when the federal government engages in “nondispositive” age discrimination.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the Court’s reading of the statute is too broad and “disrupts the settled expectations of federal employers and employees.”


GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC

Outokumpu operates a steel plant in Alabama that contains three “cold rolling mills,” which are required for manufacturing and processing certain steel products. In November 2007, while Outokumpu’s plant was under construction, the company’s predecessor, ThyssenKrupp, entered into three contracts with F.L. Industries (“Fives”) to provide three different-sized mills. Each of these three contracts contains an arbitration clause that, among other things, requires that arbitration take place in Dusseldorf, Germany, and that the forum apply the substantive law of Germany.
The contracts define the parties to each as Outokumpu and Fives and provide that any mention of either party also includes any subcontractors of that party; appended to the contracts is a list of subcontractors, including petitioner GE Energy Conversion France SAS (“GE Energy”), formerly known as Converteam SAS.
Fives contracted with GE Energy to provide three motors for each of the three mills, for a total of nine motors, which were manufactured in France and delivered and installed in Alabama between 2011 and 2012. By June 2014, the motors began to fail, and by August 2015, motors in all three mills failed. It came to light that Fives and GE Energy had entered into a separate agreement with another party that designated Fives to represent the interests of all three parties in the event of a dispute.
Outokumpu filed a lawsuit against GE Energy in Alabama state court in 2016, and GE Energy removed to federal court and moved to dismiss and compel arbitration. The district court granted GE Energy’s motion to compel and dismissed the action. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed and remanded as to the motion to compel, holding that the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards requires that the arbitration agreement be signed by the parties before Court or their privities, and only under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (which does not expressly restrict arbitration to the specific parties to an agreement) can parties compel arbitration through the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63154.xml


The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not “alter background principles” of state law, including doctrines like equitable estoppel, which authorizes contract enforcement by a nonsignatory. Chapter 2 of the FAA provides that “Chapter 1 applies to actions and proceedings brought under this chapter to the extent that [Chapter 1] is not in conflict with this chapter or the Convention.” The relevant provision of the Convention states that courts of a contracting state “shall...refer the parties to arbitration” when the parties to the action entered into a written agreement to arbitrate and one of the parties requests the referral.
The Court then considered whether state-law equitable estoppel doctrine permitted under Chapter 1 conflicts with the Convention, concluding that it does not. Most importantly, the text of the Convention is silent as to whether nonsignatories may enforce arbitration agreements under domestic doctrines such as equitable estoppel; this silence is dispositive of the matter. This understanding is consistent with the history of the Convention as well as the post-ratification understanding of signatory nations.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion to note that the application of domestic doctrine like equitable estoppel must be rooted in the principle of consent to arbitrate.


This case arises from the scandal that became known as “Bridgegate.” Defendants William E. Baroni, Jr. and Bridget Anne Kelly conspired to create major traffic jams in Fort Lee, New Jersey, after Fort Lee’s mayor refused to endorse the 2013 reelection bid of then-Governor Chris Christie. The defendants and others limited motorists’ access to the George Washington Bridge, the world’s busiest bridge, for four days during the first week of Fort Lee’s school year, resulting in extensive traffic delays.
In 2015, a grand jury indicted Baroni and Kelly for their roles in the scheme. Each was charged with seven counts, including conspiracy to obtain by fraud, knowingly convert, or intentionally misapply property of an organization receiving federal benefits, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and the substantive offense underlying that conspiracy, 18 U.S.C § 666(a)(1)(A). A jury convicted the defendants on all counts. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the conviction as to four of the seven, including the two at issue here. In support of its conclusion, the court reasoned that the defendants had defrauded the Port Authority of its property by citing a “traffic study” as the purpose for the lane closures rather than their “real reason” of political payback.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63155.xml


Baroni and Kelly could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws because the scheme did not aim to obtain money or property. Justice Elena Kagan authored the opinion for a unanimous Court. First, the Court looked to the language of the federal wire fraud statute and the federal-program fraud statute, finding those statutes “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” Thus, the government needed to prove not only that Baroni and Kelly engaged in deception, but that the object of that deception was money or property. Taking control of the lanes of the bridge does not constitute taking of government property because under Court precedent, a scheme to alter a regulatory choice does not amount to taking of property. Similarly, causing increased costs of compensating traffic engineers and back-up toll collectors is an incidental product and not the “object of the fraud,” as required by the statute.


Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc.

Marcel and Lucky Brand are competitors in the apparel industry, and this dispute arises over Marcel’s allegation that Lucky Brand is infringing on its “Get Lucky” trademark through its use of “Lucky” on its merchandise in violation of an injunction entered in an earlier action between the two parties.
In 2003, the two parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve a trademark dispute in which Lucky Brand agreed not to use “Get Lucky” and Marcel agreed to release certain claims it might have in the future arising out of its trademarks. The two parties contest the scope of Marcel’s release of claims, with Marcel contending that it only released claims as to infringement that occurred prior to the 2003 execution of the agreement and Lucky Brand arguing that it released any future claim Marcel may have in relation to any trademark registered prior to the execution of the agreement. Further litigation ensued.
In litigation between the two parties over substantially the same trademark disputes, Lucky Brand argued for its interpretation of the 2003 settlement agreement. It moved to dismiss on the basis that because the marks at issue were registered prior to the settlement agreement, Marcel released any claim alleging infringement of those marks. The district court denied the motion, concluding that it was premature to determine which claims were subject to release in the 2001 agreement. However, the district court noted that Lucky Brand was “free to raise the issue . . . again after the record is more fully developed.” Lucky Brand raised the defense again in its answer and as an affirmative defense, but not again during the litigation. After a jury trial, the district court entered judgment for Marcel, declaring that Lucky Brand infringed on Marcel’s “Get Lucky” trademark and enjoining Lucky Brand from using the “Get Lucky” mark. Lucky Brand did not appeal.
In 2011, Marcel filed another lawsuit against Lucky Brand alleging that the latter continued to use “Lucky Brand” mark after the injunction. Lucky Brand moved for summary judgment on the basis that Marcel’s claims were precluded by res judicata in light of the final disposition of the previous action. The district court agreed, but the Second Circuit reversed, finding the allegedly barred claims “could not possibly have been sued upon in the previous case.” On remand, Marcel filed a second amended complaint, which Lucky Brand moved to dismiss on the sole basis that the 2001 agreement barred Marcel’s claims. The district court granted the motion and rejected Marcel’s argument that Lucky Brand was precluded from raising those claims.
The Second Circuit vacated, concluding that the doctrine of claim preclusion (or more precisely, defense preclusion) applied in situations as this one and that it barred Lucky Brand from invoking its release defense again in this action.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63156.xml


Because the trademark action at issue challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from an earlier action between the parties, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses, including a defense that Lucky Brand failed to press fully in the earlier suit. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion for the unanimous Court.
“Res judicata” is a term that comprises two doctrines of preclusion. First, issue preclusion (also known as “collateral estoppel”) precludes a party from litigating an issue actually decided in a prior case and necessary to the judgment. Second, claim preclusion (also known as “res judicata”) prevents parties from raising claims that could have been raised and decided in a prior action, even if they were not actually litigated. Courts define the “same claim” as meaning the claims arise from the same transaction, or involve a “common nucleus of operative facts.” In this case, the Court found the two suits “were grounded on different conduct, involving different marks, occurring at different times.” The 2005 claims arose from Lucky Brand’s alleged use of “Get Lucky,” while the 2011 claims arose from other alleged uses of the word “Lucky,” not the phrase “Get Lucky.” As such, they did not share a “common nucleus of operative facts,” and claim preclusion therefore cannot apply.


Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue

Petitioners Kendra Espinoza and others are low-income mothers who applied for scholarships to keep their children enrolled in Stillwater Christian School, in Kalispell, Montana. The Montana legislature enacted a tax-credit scholarship program in 2015 to provide a modest tax credit to individuals and businesses who donate to private, nonprofit scholarship organizations. Shortly after the program was enacted, the Montana Department of Revenue promulgated an administrative rule (“Rule 1”) prohibiting scholarship recipients from using their scholarships at religious schools, citing a provision of the state constitution that prohibits “direct or indirect” public funding of religiously affiliated educational programs.
Espinoza and the other mothers filed a lawsuit in state court challenging Rule 1. The court determined that the scholarship program was constitutional without Rule 1 and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Department of Revenue argued that the program is unconstitutional without Rule 1. The Montana Supreme Court agreed with the Department and reversed the lower court.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63157.xml


The application of the Montana Constitution’s “no-aid” provision to a state program providing tuition assistance to parents who send their children to private schools discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend them in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion on behalf of the 5-4 majority.
The Court first noted that the Free Exercise Clause “protects religious observers against unequal treatment” and against “laws that impose special disabilities on the basis of religious status.” In this case, Montana’s no-aid provision excluded religious schools from public benefits solely because of religious status. As such, the law must be subject to strict scrutiny review; that is, the government must show that its action advances “‘interests of the highest order” and that the action is “narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.” Montana’s interest in this case—which the Court described as creating greater separation of church and state than the federal Constitution requires—does not satisfy strict scrutiny given its infringement of free exercise. Because the Free Exercise Clause barred the application of Montana’s no-aid provision, the Montana Supreme Court lacked the authority to invalidate the program on the basis of that provision.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined, opining that the Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause (not at issue in this case) hampers free exercise rights.
Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Gorsuch each filed their own separate concurrences. Justice Alito argued, as he did in dissenting from the Court’s decision earlier this term in Ramos v. Louisiana, that original motivation should have no bearing on the present constitutionality of a provision of law, yet even without that consideration, the majority reached the correct conclusion in this case. Justice Gorsuch argued that the Court’s characterization of the Montana Constitution as discriminating based on “religious status” and not “religious use,” is dubious at best.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Elena Kagan joined, arguing that the Montana Supreme Court’s decision does not place a burden on petitioners’ religious exercise and thus does not violate the Free Exercise Clause. The Court’s precedents establish that neutral government action is not unconstitutional solely because it fails to benefit religious exercise.
Justice Stephen Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined in part. Justice Breyer argued that the majority’s approach and conclusion risk the kind of entanglement and conflict that the Religion Clauses are intended to prevent. Instead, Justice Breyer opined that the Court’s decision in Locke—upholding the application of a no-aid provision in Washington State based on the conclusion that the Free Exercise Clause permitted Washington to forbid state-scholarship funds for students pursuing devotional theology degrees—controlled the outcome in this case, in which the no-aid provision was “materially similar.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a separate dissenting opinion, arguing that the Court in this case resolved a constitutional question not presented, thereby violating “Article III principles older than the Religion Clause” itself. Moreover, Justice Sotomayor continued, the Court answered incorrectly that question it should not have addressed in the first place.


Petitioner Romag Fasteners, Inc., sells magnetic snap fasteners for use in wallets, handbags, and other leather goods. Respondent Fossil designs, markets, and distributes fashion accessories, including handbags and small leather goods. In 2002, Fossil and Romag entered into an agreement to use Romag fasteners in Fossil’s products, and Fossil’s manufacturers purchased tens of thousands of Romag fasteners between 2002 and 2008. In 2010, the president of Romag discovered that certain Fossil handbags sold in the United States contained counterfeit snaps bearing the Romag mark. Romag sued Fossil in 2010 for patent and trademark infringement. Romag alleged that Fossil knowingly adopted and used the Romag mark without Romag’s consent.
A jury found that Fossil had infringed Romag’s trademark and patents but that none of the violations were willful. The jury awarded Romag trademark damages under two theories: over $90,000 in profits “to prevent unjust enrichment” and over $6.7 million in profits “to deter future trademark infringement.” For the latter award, the jury found that Fossil had acted with “callous disregard” for Romag’s trademark rights. However, the district court struck the jury’s award, finding that “a finding of willfulness remains a requirement for an award of defendants’ profits in this Circuit.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, finding that within the Second Circuit, a showing of willfulness was required for an award of profits. Romag petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. In light of its decision in SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, 580 U.S. __ (2017), that affected the patent infringement claims in this case, the Court granted the petition, vacated the Federal Circuit’s decision, and remanded the case. On remand, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed the district court’s judgment declining to award Fossil’s profits.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63158.xml


Section 35 of the Lanham Act does not require a plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to an award of profits. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the opinion of the Court on behalf of the 8-1 majority.
The plain language of Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) does not require a plaintiff alleging a claim under § 1125(a) to show willfulness. Rather, the statute mentions “willfulness” only in connection to § 1125(c). The Court declined to read into the statute words that are not there, particularly since Congress included the term “willfulness” elsewhere in the very same statutory provision.
Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan to note that while willfulness is a “highly important” consideration in awarding profits under Section 35 of the Lanham Act, it is not an “absolute precondition.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, to highlight a distinction, supported by the weight of authority, between “willful” infringement and “innocent” infringement—a distinction she criticizes the majority of being “agnostic” about.


Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

United Western Bancorp, Inc. (UWBI) was in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings when it received a tax refund check from the Internal Revenue Service that was the result of net operating losses incurred by one of UWBI’s subsidiaries (United Western Bank). UWBI and its subsidiaries had entered into a tax allocation agreement in 2008 that was the source of the present ownership dispute. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) alleged that, as receiver for the Bank, it was entitled to the federal tax refund that was due because the refund stemmed exclusively from the Bank’s business loss carrybacks. Simon Rodriguez, in his capacity as the Chapter 7 Trustee for the bankruptcy estate of UWBI, initiated a bankruptcy adversary proceeding against the FDIC, alleging that UWBI owned the tax refund and thus that it was part of the bankruptcy estate.
The bankruptcy court agreed with Rodriguez and entered summary judgment. The FDIC appealed to federal district court, which reversed the bankruptcy court. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court. Under federal common law, “a tax refund due from a joint return generally belongs to the company responsible for the losses that form the basis of the refund.” Applying this rule and noting that the agreement’s intended treatment of tax refunds mandates the same result, the Tenth Circuit concluded that the tax refund at issue belonged to the Bank and thus that the FDIC, as receiver for the Bank, was entitled to summary judgment.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63159.xml


In an opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, a unanimous Court held that state law is “well equipped to handle disputes involving corporate property rights.” Federal common law should only exist to “protect uniquely federal interests” the Court explained. “Nothing like that exists here” it continued. While the federal government potentially has a sufficiently unique interest in rules governing the receipt of taxes from corporate entities, the court elaborated, it questioned the strength of any interest in how a tax refund, once received, is distributed among the members of that entity. The Court found that neither federal courts that have applied federal common law to this question nor the FDIC as the advocate for federal common law in this case had ever articulated a sufficient unique federal interest to justify the existence of federal common law on this point.
The Court did not decide whether the outcome of the particular dispute before it would have been different if decided under the applicable state law rather than erroneously under the federal common law it deemed improper. Instead, the Court remanded the case to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal for that determination.


The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provides in relevant part that a person who has three previous convictions for a “violent felony” or a “serious drug offense” shall serve a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison. In recent cases, the U.S. Supreme Court has adopted a “categorical” approach to determine whether a prior conviction constitutes a “violent felony” within the ACCA. Under this approach, the sentencing court must look only to the statutory definition of the prior offense and not to the particular facts underlying the prior convictions. At issue in this case is whether the categorical approach applies to the determination of whether a prior conviction constitutes a “serious drug offense” as well.
Eddie Lee Shular qualified as an armed career criminal on the basis of six prior Florida convictions for controlled substance offenses—five for sale of cocaine and one for possession with intent to sell. None of these offenses required that the government prove that Shular had “knowledge of the illicit nature of the substance,” that is, that the substance possessed or sold was cocaine. Under the categorical approach, none of Shular’s Florida convictions would qualify as a “serious drug offense” because the Florida crimes are broader than the generic drug analogues under federal law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit rejected the categorical approach to serious drug offenses, holding that the plain language of the ACCA definition “requires only that the predicate offense involve certain activities related to controlled substances.”

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63160.xml


The statute does not require “a generic-offense matching exercise” between the elements of the offenses listed in the federal statute and the elements of the state offense under which the defendant was convicted. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Ginsburg adopted the argument of the United States, which instead would have the trial court asked “whether the state offense’s elements necessarily entail one of the types of conduct” identified in the federal statute.
The Court found that two features of the statute in question lead to this interpretation. The first is that the offenses listed in the statute are “unlikely names for generic offenses” and therefore refer to underlying conduct and not offenses themselves. Secondly, the use of the word “involving” in the statute suggests an intention to describe criminal conduct and not particular criminal offenses.
The Court noted that both parties’ interpretations of the statutory language “achieve a measure of inconsistency. Justice Ginsburg explained, “Resolving this case requires us to determine which form of consistency Congress intended: application of [the statute] to all offenders who engaged in certain conduct or to all who committed certain generic offenses (in either reading, judging only by the elements of their prior convictions).“ She continued, “For the reasons explained, we are persuaded that Congress chose the former.”
In a brief concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh stated he joined the Court’s opinion in full but wrote separately to explain that the rule of lenity advocated by Shular was not appropriately invoked where the Court found the statutory language unambiguous.


Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican national, was playing with friends in the cement culvert between El Paso, Texas, and Cuidad Juarez, Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. arrived on the scene and detained one of Hernández’s friends on U.S. territory. Hernández ran into Mexican territory and stood by a pillar near the culvert. From U.S. territory, Mesa fired at least two shots across the border at Hernández, one of which struck Hernández in the face and killed him.
Hernández’s parents filed a lawsuit against the officer and various other defendants alleging violation of their son’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed and part and reversed in part. The Fifth Circuit held that Hernández lacked Fourth Amendment rights, but his parents were entitled to a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (holding an implied cause of action against federal government officials who have violated the plaintiff’s constitutional rights), and the officer was not entitled to qualified immunity. On rehearing en banc, the full Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the parents’ claims, holding that they had failed to state a claim for a violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not “clearly established” that it was unconstitutional for an officer on U.S. soil to shoot a Mexican national on Mexican soil.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2016 and reversed the en banc Fifth Circuit as to qualified immunity. The Court remanded the case so the lower court could determine whether the shooting violated Hernández’s Fourth Amendment rights and whether his parents could assert claims for damages under Bivens. On remand, the en banc Fifth Circuit once again affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, holding that the excessive force claim was unlike any that had been decided previously and thus the plaintiffs were not entitled to any remedy under Bivens. In so holding, the Fifth Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Ziglar v. Abbasi, 582 U.S. __ (2017), in which the Court held that for a new type of claim to be cognizable under Bivens, there must be some special factor makes the judiciary better suited than the legislature to recognize such a claim.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63161.xml


The Court’s decision in Bivens does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting by a federal law enforcement officer. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion for a 5-4 majority.
Bivens recognized an implied cause of action against federal government officials who have violated the plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights, and the Court has extended that holding to cover claims under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments as well. When considering whether to extend Bivens, a court must ask (1) whether the claim arises in a “new context” or involves a “new category of defendants,” and if so, then (2) whether there are “special factors” that weigh against extending Bivens to that type of claim.
In this case, the Court found the claims arise from a new and “significantly” different context—a cross-border shooting. As to the second part of the test, the Court also found “multiple” separation-of-powers factors counseling hesitation before extending Bivens: (1) to extend Bivens to this context implicates foreign relations, which is beyond the reach of the Court, (2) the risk of undermining border security and the system of military discipline created by statute and regulation, and (3) Congress has “repeatedly” declined to recognize a damages award against federal officials who cause injury outside U.S. borders. For these reasons, the Court declined to recognize a Bivens cause of action for the injury in this case.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Thomas joined the majority in full but wrote separately to suggest that the Court discard Bivens and its progeny of cases.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. Justice Ginsburg argued that conduct by a “rogue” federal officer is not a new context, but the very context contemplated in Bivens. Even if it were a new setting, Justice Ginsburg argued neither foreign policy nor national security would be endangered by recognizing a Bivens claim in this case, so no “special factors” counsel against recognizing the claim.


Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California

In 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) adopted a program—known as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—to postpone the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had been brought to the United States as children and to assign them work permits allowing them to obtain social security numbers, pay taxes, and become part of “mainstream” society in the United States.
In 2017, after the national election, when the Trump administration replaced the Obama administration, DHS began a phase-out of DACA. The parties do not dispute the authority of a new administration to replace old policies with new policies, but the plaintiffs in this and related challenges allege that the new administration terminated DACA based on a mistake of law rather than in compliance with the law. Specifically, the Trump administration terminated DACA based on a conclusion that the Obama administration had created DACA “without proper statutory authority and with no established end-date” and thus that it was an “unconstitutional exercise of authority by the Executive Branch.”
The plaintiffs in this case and the related cases challenged this conclusion of law, alleging that the recission of DACA violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was arbitrary and capricious, and because it was a substantive rule that did not comply with the APA’s notice-and-comment requirements. The challengers also alleged that the recission deprived DACA recipients of constitutionally protected liberty and property interests without due process of law and violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was motivated by discriminatory animus.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the DACA recission was not “committed to agency discretion by law” and that there was “law to apply.” Further, the Ninth Circuit granted plaintiffs a preliminary injunction restoring DACA, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to win on the merits of their arguments, they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in the plaintiffs’ favor, and the injunction is in the public interest.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63162.xml


The Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down DACA is reviewable, and its decision was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 5-4 majority opinion.
As a threshold matter, the Court noted that the APA contains a rebuttable presumption that agency action is subject to judicial review. Because DACA was not merely a non-enforcement policy but affirmatively created a program for conferring immigration relief, it constitutes agency action subject to judicial review. Further, because the parties do not challenge any removal proceedings, the jurisdictional provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act do not apply.
Under the APA, an agency must supply “reasoned analysis” for its actions. The rescission memorandum failed to consider the possibility of eliminating benefits eligibility while continuing forbearance, relying solely on the Attorney General’s conclusion regarding the illegality of benefits. Moreover, the rescission memorandum failed to address whether there was “legitimate reliance” on the DACA Memorandum. While an agency does not need to consider all policy alternatives, it is required to assess “important aspects” of the problem before it. Given that deferred action was not only “within the ambit” of DACA, but its “centerpiece,” the failure to consider these options rendered the decision arbitrary and capricious.
Joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan, The Chief Justice also opined that the respondents in this case failed to establish a plausible inference that the rescission was motivated by animus, in violation of the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. Though she joined the Chief Justice’s opinion as to the reviewability of the rescission and the conclusion that it was arbitrary and capricious, Justice Sotomayor argued that it was premature to dismiss the respondents’ equal protection claims and would thus remand the case to allow the respondents to develop those claims.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. Justice Thomas argued that because the Obama administration’s implementation of DACA was unlawful, DHS’s decision to rescind the program is “clearly reasonable” and that the Court’s decision allows administrations to “unlawfully bind their successors by unlawfully adopting significant legal changes through Executive Branch agency memoranda” that “cannot be undone” without “sufficient policy justifications to the satisfaction of this Court.” Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment only as to the rejection of the equal protection claim.
Justice Alito authored an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, to reiterate his agreement with Justice Thomas’s dissent and with Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s separate dissent.
Justice Kavanaugh authored an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justice Kavanaugh argued that the Court should have focused not on the memorandum by DHS Secretary Duke, but the one by the subsequent DHS Secretary Nielsen, which the Court “jettison[ed]” as a post hoc justification. In Justice Kavanaugh’s view, the Nielsen Memorandum reasonably explained the decision to rescind DACA and thus would pass muster as an explanation for the rescission.


In June 2014, Louisiana passed Act 620, which required “that every physician who performs or induces an abortion shall ‘have active admitting privileges at a hospital that is located not further than thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced.’”
Several abortion clinics and doctors challenged Act 620, and while that challenge was pending in the district court, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a “nearly identical” Texas law in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt (WWH), finding that the Texas law imposed an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion while bringing about no “health-related benefit” and serving no “relevant credentialing function.” The district court hearing the challenge to Act 620 accordingly declared Act 620 facially invalid and permanently enjoined its enforcement.
The district court made detailed findings of fact and determined that “admitting privileges also do not serve ‘any relevant credentialing function,’” and that “physicians are sometimes denied privileges ... for reasons unrelated to [medical] competency.” The district court further determined that the law would “drastically burden women’s right to choose abortions.”
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit the panel majority reviewed the evidence de novo and concluded that the district court erred by overlooking “remarkabl[e] differen[ces]” between the facts in this case and in WWH. The panel concluded that “no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of the Act,” and thus, the law would not impose an undue burden on women’s right to choose abortions. A divided Fifth Circuit denied the petition for a rehearing en banc.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63163.xml


The Fifth Circuit’s judgment, upholding a Louisiana law that requires abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at local hospitals, is reversed. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the plurality opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.
As a threshold matter, the plurality noted that the State had waived its argument that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the law by conceding the standing issue “as part of its effort to obtain a quick decision from the District Court on the merits of the plaintiffs’ undue-burden claims.” However, even if it had not, “a long line of well-established precedents” support the conclusion that plaintiffs may assert rights on behalf of third parties when “enforcement of the challenged restriction against the litigant would result indirectly in the violation of third parties’ rights.”
Turning to the merits, the plurality first reiterated the law established in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) and Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016)—that courts must conduct an independent review of the legislative findings given in support of an abortion-related statute and weigh the law’s “asserted benefits against the burdens” it imposes on abortion access. The plurality found that the district court faithfully applied this standard. The Fifth Circuit disagreed with the lower court, not as to the legal standard, but as to the factual findings. However, an appeals court may not set aside findings of fact unless they are “clearly erroneous,” which they were not in this case. Rather, the district court’s findings had “ample evidentiary support” both as to burdens and as to benefits, so its legal conclusion that the Louisiana law was unconstitutional was proper.
Chief Justice John Robert concurred in the judgment, reasoning that the plaintiffs had standing and that because the Louisiana law was nearly identical to the Texas law at issue in Whole Woman’s Health, it imposed a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law the Court struck down in that case. Under the principle of stare decisis, that like cases should be treated alike, the Chief Justice concurred in the judgment striking down the Louisiana law. In so concluding, however, he noted, that he disagreed with the decision in Whole Woman’s Health at the time and continued to disagree with it.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing both that the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the Court lacks the authority to declare Louisiana’s “duly enacted law” unconstitutional. Justice Thomas criticized the Court’s abortion precedents as “creat[ing] the right to abortion out of whole cloth.”
Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh joined in part. Justice Alito argued that the majority “misuses the doctrine of stare decisis, invokes an inapplicable standard of appellate review, and distorts the record.” Specifically, Justice Alito criticized the plurality for abandoning the constitutional test in Casey for a new balancing test established in Whole Woman’s Health, a test the Chief Justice purported to reject.
Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion arguing that in deciding the case and striking down the law, the Court exceeded its authority.
Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion and pointed out that a 5-4 majority of the Court (himself included) rejected the balancing test of Whole Woman’s Health, while a different 5-4 majority concluded that the Louisiana law must be struck down. In Justice Kavanaugh’s view, the record is not adequately developed to properly evaluate the Louisiana law. As such, he agreed with Justice Alito that the case should be remanded for additional factfinding.


United States Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association

The Appalachian Trail spans over 2,000 miles, from Maine to Georgia, with approximately 1,000 miles of the Trail crossing through lands within national forests. Under the National Trails System Act, the Secretary of the Interior has the responsibility to administer the trail and that responsibility may not be transferred to any other federal agencies. The Mineral Leasing Act grants the U.S. Forest Service the authority to grant certain rights-of-way through lands in the National Forest System, but no federal agency has the authority to grant equivalent rights-of-way through lands in the National Park System.
In 2017, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission granted Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC (Atlantic) authorization to construct, operate, and maintain a natural gas pipeline that would cross the Appalachian Trail at points located within the George Washington and Monogahela National Forests. After a review process, the Forest Service authorized Atlantic to proceed with construction of the pipeline, finding it had authority under the Mineral Leasing Act to grant a right-of-way for the pipeline and that the pipeline “would have no long lasting impacts” on the Trail.
Cowpasture River Preservation Association and others filed a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for review of the Forest Service’s record of decision and special use permit. The court granted the petition, vacated the record of decision and special use permit, and remanded to the Forest Service. Notably, the court determined that the Forest Service lacked authority to grant the right-of-way under the Mineral Leasing Act because the Appalachian Trail is a “unit” of the National Park System. The court determined that the Mineral Leasing Act “specifically excludes” the Trail “from the authority of the Secretary of the Interior ‘or appropriate agency head’ to grant pipeline rights of way.”
The Court consolidated this case for oral argument with U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, No. 18-1584.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63164.xml


The Forest Service did have the authority to issue the special use permit because the Department of the Interior’s decision to assign responsibility for the Appalachian Trail to the National Park Service did not transform the land over which the Trail passes into land within the National Park System. Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion for the 7-2 majority of the Court. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined in full except as to the part of the majority’s discussion explaining why Cowpasture’s proposed interpretation would vastly expand the Park Service’s jurisdiction in a way inconsistent with the regulatory scheme.
The Court first noted that it is undisputed that the Forest Service has jurisdiction over the federal lands within the George Washington National Forest. At issue was whether the presence of the Appalachian Trail removes that part of the lands from the Forest Service’s jurisdiction and places them under the jurisdiction of the Park Service. The Court observed that the Forest Service entered into a “right-of-way” agreement with the National Park Service, which resulted in the Appalachian Trail. A right-of-way is a type of easement, granting only nonpossessory rights of use of the land, so the grant of the right-of-way did not divest the Forest Service of jurisdiction over the land. Thus, the Court concluded, the Secretary retained authority to issue the special use permit for the pipeline running underneath the Trail.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined. Justice Sotomayor argued that the majority complicated what should be a simple question: “Is the Appalachian National Scenic Trail ‘land in the National Park System’?” Because federal law does not distinguish “land” from the Trail “any more than it distinguishes ‘land’ from the many monuments, historic buildings, parkways, and recreational areas that are also units of the Park System,” the dichotomy the Court draws contravenes the text of the statutes governing the Appalachian Trial.


Evelyn Sineneng-Smith operated an immigration consulting firm in San Jose, California. Her clients were mostly natives of the Philippines, who were unlawfully employed in the United States and were seeking to obtain legal permanent residence (green cards). Sineneng-Smith purported to help her clients obtain permanent residence through the Labor Certification process, but that program expired on April 30, 2001. Sineneng-Smith knew that the program had expired but nonetheless continued to tell clients that they could obtain green cards via Labor Certifications.
Federal law prohibits encouraging or inducing an alien to reside in the country, knowing and in reckless disregard of the fact that such residence is in violation of the law. Sineneng-Smith was indicted, charged, and convicted by a jury of violating this law. She appealed her conviction, and the U.S. Court of Appeals solicited supplemental briefing on several constitutional questions presented in the appeal. The court held that the statute was overbroad in violation of the First Amendment, criminalizing a “substantial amount of protected expression in relation to the statute’s narrow legitimate sweep.”

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63165.xml


In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the Ninth Circuit panel abused its discretion when it “drastic[ally]” departed from the principle of party presentation in ruling on the issue of constitutional overbreadth. The Court found that the Ninth Circuit did not address the party-presented controversy, but instead addressed a different question that the parties did not raise, constituting a “radical transformation” of the case.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion in which he argued that the Ninth Circuit’s decision violates “far more than the party presentation rule.” He noted that while he has joined the Court in applying overbreadth doctrine in the past, he has “since developed doubts about its origins and application.” Finding no basis in the Constitution’s text, he would urge the Court to revisit that doctrine.


Nidal Khalid Nasrallah, a native and citizen of Lebanon, was 17 years old when he entered the United States on a tourist visa in 2006. He became a lawful permanent resident the following year.
In 2011, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Nasrallah pleaded guilty to two counts of receiving stolen property in interstate commerce. An immigration judge determined that one of those convictions made Nasrallah subject to removal as an alien convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). However, the judge also found Nasrallah had established a clear probability that he would be tortured and persecuted in Lebanon by groups such as Hezbollah and ISIS because of his Druze religion and western ties, so the judge granted him a deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture. Both the government and Nasrallah appealed the IJ's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). On appeal, the BIA held that the immigration judge erred in granting Nasrallah a deferral, and it ordered his removal.
Nasrallah appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Reviewing the BIA’s conclusions of law de novo, the Eleventh Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Nasrallah’s petition for review. Specifically, Nasrallah had asked the court to reweigh the factors involved in the removal order, but under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2), the courts lack jurisdiction to review the factual findings underlying the denial of removal relief. The court therefore dismissed Nasrallah’s claim for lack of jurisdiction.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63172.xml


Federal courts have jurisdiction to review a noncitizen’s factual challenges to an administrative order denying relief under the Convention Against Torture. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the opinion on behalf of the 7-2 majority.
To understand the meaning of the relevant statutory provisions, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and D, the Court looked to three related statutes. First, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes noncitizens to obtain direct “review of a final order of removal” in a court of appeals and requires that all challenges arising from the removal proceedings be consolidated. Second, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA) implements the relevant provision of the Convention Against Torture (CAT) and provides for judicial review of CAT claims “as part of a final order of removal.” Third, the REAL ID Act of 2005 states that final orders of removal and CAT claims may be reviewed only in the courts of appeals. Because a factual challenge to a CAT claim, as Nasrallah brought in this case, is not a challenge to a final order of removal, FARRA provides that the denial of the CAT claim is reviewable “as part of a final order of removal.” The challenger must meet the burden of “substantial evidence”—that is, that any reasonable factfinder would be compelled to arrive at a different conclusion from that at which the agency arrived.
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Samuel Alito joined, arguing that a so-called “zipper clause” of Section 1252(b)(9) determines the meaning of Section 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D), and that clause precludes judicial review of CAT orders.


Arthur J. Lomax is a Colorado prisoner at the Limon Correctional Facility. While at a different prison, he filed a lawsuit against several prison employees and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (without paying the usual court fees) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Upon direction of the district court, Lomax amended his complaint to allege violations of his Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The same district court dismissed without prejudice three of Mr. Lomax's previous actions on the grounds that they failed to state a claim. The district court further noted that these dismissals were “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which bars inmates from filing or appealing a federal civil action without paying the associated fees if they have filed three or more cases or appeals that were dismissed because the lawsuits were frivolous or malicious or did not properly state a legal claim for relief.
Because of the previous strikes, the court ordered Lomax to show cause before proceeding in forma pauperis. In response to the show cause order, Lomax argued (among other things) that because the prior dismissals were without prejudice, they do not count as strikes.
The district court denied Lomax’s motion as barred by the three-strikes provision, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63173.xml


Dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under three-strikes rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Justice Elena Kagan authored the opinion on behalf of the majority that was unanimous except as to footnote 4 (dicta as to the provision’s applicability when a court gives a plaintiff leave to amend his complaint), which Justice Clarence Thomas did not join.
The three-strikes rule of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), generally prevents a prisoner from bringing suit in forma pauperis (IFP) if he has had three or more prior suits “dismissed on the grounds that [they were] frivolous, malicious, or fail[ed] to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” The very language of that provision covers all dismissals for failure to state a claim, whether issued with or without prejudice. To read it differently would require reading the word “dismissed” in Section 1915(g) as “dismissed with prejudice,” which not only runs contrary to the plain language but would create conflicts with other parts of the Act.


Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was investigating Seila Law LLC, a law firm that provides debt-relief services, among others. As part of its investigation, the CFPB issued a civil investigative demand to Seila Law that requires the firm to respond to several interrogatories and requests for documents. Seila Law refused to comply with the demand, so the CFPB filed a petition in the district court to enforce compliance. The district court granted the petition and ordered Seila Law to comply with the CID. Seila Law appealed the district court’s order on two grounds, one of which was that the CFPB is unconstitutionally structured.
Specifically, Seila Law argued that the CFPB’s structure violates the Constitution’s separation of powers because it is an independent agency headed by a single Director who exercises substantial executive power but can be removed by the President only for cause. The Ninth Circuit disagreed.
The court found two Supreme Court decisions on separation of powers controlling: Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), and Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988). According to the Ninth Circuit panel, those cases indicate that the for-cause removal restriction protecting the CFPB’s Director does not “impede the President’s ability to perform his constitutional duty” to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63174.xml


The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s leadership by a single Director removable only for inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance violates the separation of powers, but that provision is severable from the Dodd-Frank Act. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion of the Court.
Article II of the federal Constitution vests the entire “executive Power” in the President alone, though lesser executive officers may assist the President in discharging his duties. The President retains the power supervise and to remove these lesser executive officers, and Congress may not restrict the President’s power to remove such officers, except in two circumstances, neither of which was present in this case.
First, Congress may grant for-cause removal protection to a multimember body of experts who were balanced along partisan lines, appointed to staggered terms, performed only “quasi-legislative” and “quasi-judicial functions,” and were said not to exercise any executive power. Second, Congress may grant for-cause removal protection to an inferior officer—the independent counsel—who had limited duties and no policymaking or administrative authority.
The director of the CFPB falls within neither of these exceptions, and the Court declined to extend the exceptions to a new situation because the CFPB’s structure has no foothold in history or tradition and the CFPB’s single-director configuration is incompatible with the structure of the Constitution, which “scrupulously” avoids concentrating power in the hands of any single individual, save the President.
The Chief Justice, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh, concluded that the Director’s removal protection is severable from the other provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that establish the CFPB and define its authority.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion in which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined, concurring with the Chief Justice’s conclusion that the CFPB’s structure violates the separation of powers but dissenting as to the severability of the clause. Justice Thomas argued that he would repudiate entirely the first exception in which Congress may restrict the President’s power to remove lesser executive officers and that the doctrine of severability is entirely unfounded because it “involves nebulous inquir[ies] into hypothetical congressional intent.”
Justice Elena Kagan authored an opinion in which Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor joined, concurring with the Chief Justice’s conclusion as to severability but dissenting as to the conclusion that the configuration violates the separation of powers. Justice Kagan argued that for-cause removal restrictions serve to create in administrative agencies “a measure of independence from political pressure” and that “the text of the Constitution, the history of the country, the precedents of this Court, and the need for sound and adaptable governance—all stand against the majority’s opinion.


Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam is a native and citizen of Sri Lanka and a Tamil, an ethnic minority group in Sri Lanka. Thuraissigiam entered the United States via its southern border, and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers arrested him and placed him in expedited removal proceedings. Thuraissigiam indicated a fear of persecution in Sri Lanka, but an asylum officer determined he had not established a credible fear of persecution and referred him for removal. A supervisor affirmed the officer’s finding, and an immigration judge affirmed it as well in a check-box decision.
Thuraissigiam filed a habeas petition in federal district court, arguing that his expedited removal order violated his statutory, regulatory, and constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e) did not authorize jurisdiction over Thuraissigiam’s claims and rejecting his argument that the removal process to which he was subjected effectively suspended the writ of habeas corpus, in violation of the Suspension Clause.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court. Because the administrative scheme governing credible fear determinations in this context is “meager,” and § 1252(a)(2) disallows judicial review of whether DHS complied with the procedures, the process does not meet minimum constitutional requirements.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63175.xml


As applied to this case, 8 U.S.C. §1252(e)(2)—which limits the habeas review obtainable by an alien detained for expedited removal—does not violate the Suspension or Due Process Clauses. Justice Samuel Alito authored the 7-2 majority opinion.
To determine the scope of the Suspension Clause, the Court first considered its meaning at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Clause provides that “[t]he Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Habeas has traditionally provided a means to seek release from unlawful detention. However, the respondent in this case does not seek release from custody, but an additional opportunity to obtain asylum. Because this meaning was not contemplated at the time the Constitution was adopted, his claims fall outside the scope of the writ.
Turning to the question of due process, the Court noted that a noncitizen who is unlawfully in the United States has only those rights that Congress has provided him by statute. The protections of the Due Process Clause do not apply to an individual simply because he might physically be within the United States. Given that the Court’s precedents establish that “the decisions of executive or administrative officers, acting within powers expressly conferred by Congress, are due process of law” for noncitizens, the respondent received all the process that was required.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion to expand on the discussion of the original meaning of the Suspension Clause.
Justice Stephen Breyer authored a concurring opinion in which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined, noting that the Court’s holding should be applied only to this particular case (since that was the narrow question presented) and should not address more broadly the question whether the Suspension Clause protects people challenging removal decisions.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion in which Justice Elena Kagan joined, arguing that the majority makes asylum determinations by the Executive Branch unreviewable, “no matter whether the denial is arbitrary or irrational or contrary to governing law.” Such unchecked power, Justice Sotomayor warned, “handcuffs the Judiciary’s ability to perform its constitutional duty to safeguard individual liberty and dismantles a critical component of the separation of powers.”


Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Charles Liu operated an EB-5 fund, which is a fund that offers lawful permanent residence opportunities to foreigners who make significant investments in the United States. However, Liu misappropriated millions of dollars that had been invested in the fund, in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, which prohibits the making of false statements in the context of a securities offering.
The district court ordered Liu to “disgorge” (pay back) $26 million, the amount investors had paid into the EB-5 fund, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. In petitioning the Supreme Court’s review, Liu argued that the SEC lacked the authority to obtain disgorgement, under the Court’s 2017 decision in Kokesh v. SEC, which held that disgorgement awarded under the court’s equitable power is a penalty, not a remedial measure.

D:\PyCharm Community Edition 2024.3.1.1\PythonProject\IBM Z Datathon\xml_data\63176.xml


In a Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement action, a disgorgement award that does not exceed a wrongdoer’s net profits and is awarded for victims is equitable relief permissible under 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5). Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the opinion on behalf of the 8-1 majority of the Court.
To determine whether disgorgement was an available remedy, the Court first looked to traditional equitable remedies, noting that courts have long used equitable remedies (albeit by different names) to prevent parties from unjustly gaining profit from wrongdoing. Though disgorgement was not, by that name, a traditional equitable remedy, it serves the same essential purpose and works in the same way and thus is available as a remedy.
Next, the Court considered what limitations on disgorgement should exist. First, the effect should be only to return the defendant’s wrongful gains to those harmed by the defendant’s wrongdoing. Second, the remedy must be limited to the profits obtained by each individual defendant. Third, the remedy must be limited to the “net” profits, considering both receipts and expenses.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that disgorgement should be unavailable as a remedy because, in his view, “disgorgement is not a traditional equitable remedy.”