FedSoc Blog

On March 18, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. The Inner Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.  The case concerns the scope of state authority over election procedures, and considers (a) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit may apply a heightened preemption test to Arizona’s voter registration law, and (b) whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona voter registration law directing persons who are registering to vote to show evidence of their eligibility.

To discuss the case, we have Tom Caso, an associate professor at Chapman University School of Law.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On January 22, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center.  This case involves Medicare payments to hospitals.  The issue is whether a 180-day statutory time limit for filing an appeal with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board from a final Medicare payment determination is subject to equitable tolling, meaning that a court has power to delay the running of the time limit in the interests of fairness.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held unanimously that the 180-day period is not jurisdictional and that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services lawfully exercised her rulemaking authority in providing for a 3-year “good cause” extension.  The Court further held, however, that a presumption in favor of equitable tolling did not apply to the good cause extension time limit, and therefore reversed the lower court decision to the contrary.  Justice Sotomayor issued a concurring opinion.

To discuss the case, we have Evan Young, a senior associate at Baker Botts, LLP.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On February 25,  the Supreme Court heard the oral argument in McQuiggin v. Perkins and Trevino v. Thaler.  Both cases involve procedural issues relating to habeas proceedings.

The question in McQuiggin is whether, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, there is an actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner show an extraordinary circumstance that “prevented timely filing” of a habeas petition, and if so, whether there is an additional actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner demonstrate that “he has been pursuing his rights diligently.”

The question in Trevino involves the Court’s 2012 decision Martinez v. Ryan, which holds that ineffective assistance of counsel in state post-conviction proceedings--with regard to claims that could not be raised on direct appeal--excuses the defendant’s failure to raise such claims in the state post-conviction proceedings, and therefore allows him to raise them for the first time in a subsequent federal habeas proceeding.  The question in Trevino is whether Martinez applies when it is unclear under state law whether the claims in question could have been raised on direct appeal.

To discuss the cases, we have Ward Campbell, the Supervising Deputy Attorney General at the California Department of Justice.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On March 18,  the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bullock v. BankChampaign, NA., a bankruptcy case.  Bankruptcy law provides debtors a means of discharging their otherwise unmanageable debts, but there are exceptions.  This case involves an exception for debts incurred through a type of misconduct known as “defalcation.”  The question here concerns the degree of trustee misconduct required to trigger the defalcation exception, and whether such conduct can include actions that did not actually result in a loss of trust property.

To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, an adjunct professor at New York Law School.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On March 19, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles.  The question in this case was whether a named plaintiff in a state class action can, before the class is certified, preclude removal of the case to federal court by purporting to limit the damages sought for putative class members to less than $5 million--the threshold that triggers a right of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA).

In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held unanimously that the plaintiff’s pre-certification stipulation could not bind the putative class, and therefore did not limit the amount in controversy for purposes of removal to federal court under CAFA.  The Court vacated the contrary decision of the lower appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

To discuss the case, we have Brian Fitzpatrick, professor at Vanderbilt Law School.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On March 19, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. This case concerns the “first-sale doctrine” in copyright law, which allows a buyer of copyrighted material to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy he or she purchased without the consent of the original owner.  The question here was how the “first sale doctrine” should apply to materials that were made and legally acquired abroad, and then imported into the United States--because importation generally is not allowed except by authority of the owner of the copyright.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that the "first-sale" doctrine does apply to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the majority opinion.  Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Alito.  Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kennedy, and by Justice Scalia in all except Parts III and V–B–1.

To discuss the case, we have Kristen Osenga, professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On February 26, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.  This case concerns Congress’s 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which created a new framework under which the Government may seek judicial authorization of certain foreign intelligence surveillance targeting the communications of foreigners located abroad.  The question before the Court was whether U.S. groups and individuals who contend that the 2008 amendments violate a number of constitutional provisions have standing to bring their challenge in court. 

In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the challengers had not demonstrated sufficient present or impending injury fairly traceable to the 2008 FISA amendments to establish standing to sue.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined Justice Alito’s opinion.  Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

To discuss the case, we have Benjamin Powell, a partner at WilmerHale.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On February 26, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Marx v. General Revenue Corp., which concerns the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The FDCPA authorizes a judge to award costs and reasonable attorneys fees to a defendant if the judge determines that the plaintiff brought his or her FDCPA lawsuit in bad faith and for the purpose of harassing the defendant.  The question in Marx was whether, where there is no finding of bad faith or harassment, a prevailing defendant in an FDCPA case can nevertheless obtain an award of costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), which generally allows an award of costs (but not attorneys’ fees) to a prevailing party in civil litigation "unless a federal statute, these [federal] rules, or a court order provides otherwise."

In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held by a vote of 7-2 that the FDCPA does not conflict with Rule 54(d), and a district court therefore retains discretion to award costs to a prevailing defendant without having to find that the plaintiff brought the case in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito joined Justice Thomas’s majority opinion.  Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kagan.

To discuss the case, we have Charles Keckler, who serves on the Board of Directors of the Legal Services Corporation.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On February 20, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Chaidez v. United States. The question in this case was whether the Court’s 2010 decision in Padilla v. Kentucky--which held that a defense attorney’s failure to inform a non-citizen criminal defendant of the deportation risk associated with a guilty plea constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment--applies retroactively to convictions made before the 2010 decision.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Kagan, the Court held by a vote of 7-2 that Padilla does not apply retroactively to cases that have reached a final decision on direct review.  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer and Alito joined Justice Kagan’s majority opinion.  Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Sotomayor filed dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Ginsburg.

To discuss the case, we have Richard Myers, Associate Dean for Student Affairs and the George R. Ward Associate Professor of Law at UNC School of Law.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On March 4, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Levin v. United States. The question in this case is whether a veteran can bring a battery claim against the United States for an injury caused by medical military personnel while performing their duties, or whether such a claim is prohibited by the “intentional tort exception” to the general waiver of sovereign immunity in the Federal Tort Claims Act.

In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held unanimously that the “intentional tort exception” does not prevent the veteran from bringing his medical battery claim against the U.S.  The Court reversed the decision of the lower appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings.  Although the decision was unanimous, Justice Scalia did not join footnotes 6 and 7 of Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the Court.

To discuss the case, we have Kyndra Rotunda, an associate professor of Military & International Law and Executive Director of the Military Law & Policy Institute & AMVETS Legal Clinic. She is also a lecturer at Berkeley School of Law.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On February 27, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission.  The question in this case was whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 2462, the five-year statute of limitations for the Securities and Exchange Commission to bring a civil penalty action against an investment advisor for securities fraud begins when the fraud occurs or when it is discovered.

In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held unanimously that the five-year time-limit begins to run when the fraud occurs, and not when it is discovered.

To discuss the case, we have Ronald Colombo, a professor at Hofstra University School of Law.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On February 26,  the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Maryland v. King.  The question in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment permits state law enforcement officials to collect and analyze DNA from people who have been arrested and charged with serious crimes.

To discuss the case, we have Mary Beth Buchanan, an Ethics and Reputational Risk Officer at the United Nations and a former United States Attorney.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On February 19, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Millbrook v. United States.  The question in this case is whether a proviso in the Federal Tort Claims Act that permits suits against the federal government for assaults committed by law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment applies in a case where a federal prisoner was allegedly raped by prison guards.

To discuss the case we have Andrew Spiropoulos, a professor of law and Director of the Center for the Study of State Constitutional Law and Government at Oklahoma City University School of Law.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On February 19, the Supreme Court announced its decision in Chafin v. Chafin, a case involving the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  Under the Convention, a child is to be returned to his or her country of “habitual residence” if the child has been taken to another country in violation of the Convention.  The question in Chafin is whether an appeal of a U.S. District Court’s ruling in a child abduction case becomes moot if the parent who won in the court takes the child back to the child’s country of habitual residence while the appeal by the losing parent is pending.

In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held unanimously that the return of a child to the foreign country does not render the appeal of the order moot.  Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, which Justices Scalia and Breyer joined.

To discuss the case, we have Margaret Ryznar, an associate professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law.

Click here to view this article on the source site »

On February 20, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in PPL Corporation and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The case considers whether, in determining the “creditability” of a foreign tax--meaning the extent to which a U.S. company paying the foreign tax can claim a corresponding credit against its U.S. taxes--courts can and should take account of the practical operation and intended effect of the foreign tax.

To discuss the case, we have Christina Sandefur, a staff attorney at the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Click here to view this article on the source site »