.jpeg&height=658.125)
Episodes 2022 Term
New York v. New Jersey
April 18, 2023
Docket: 156, Orig.
Citation: 598 U.S. 218
Topic(s): Compact Clause, Interstate Compact, Contract Interpretation
Summary: The States of New York and New Jersey disputed whether New Jersey could unilaterally withdraw from an interstate compact between them regarding a port when the compact contained no provision that addressed withdrawal. SCOTUS held that New Jersey could unilaterally withdraw over New York's objection. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Summary: The States of New York and New Jersey disputed whether New Jersey could unilaterally withdraw from an interstate compact between them regarding a port when the compact contained no provision that addressed withdrawal. SCOTUS held that New Jersey could unilaterally withdraw over New York's objection. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
.png)
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. FTC
April 14, 2023
Docket: 21-86
Citation: 598 U.S. 175
Topic(s): Separation of Powers, Article II, Article III, Regulatory Authority, Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC, Federal Trade Commission, FTC, Administrative Law Judge, ALJ, Federal Question Jurisdiction, Statutory Interpretation
Summary: An accountant regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and a company regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suits in federal district court alleging that the Commissions were unconstitutional as structured. The Commissions challenged the plaintiffs' ability to file suit in federal district court because federal statutes prescribed an initial agency review process followed by appeal directly to a federal Court of Appeals. SCOTUS held that the plaintiffs could file suit in the district court based on the type of claims asserted. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Summary: An accountant regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and a company regulated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed suits in federal district court alleging that the Commissions were unconstitutional as structured. The Commissions challenged the plaintiffs' ability to file suit in federal district court because federal statutes prescribed an initial agency review process followed by appeal directly to a federal Court of Appeals. SCOTUS held that the plaintiffs could file suit in the district court based on the type of claims asserted. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Wilkins v. United States
March 28, 2023
Docket: 21-1164
Citation: 598 U.S. 152
Topic(s): Quiet Title Act, Real Property, Easement, Statute of Limitations, Statutory Interpretation, Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, Nonjurisdictional Claims-processing Rule, Drive-By Jurisdictional Ruling
Summary: Montana property owners sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act, alleging that the Government's 1962 road easement on their property did not permit public access. The Government successfully moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the property owners' claim was barred by the Act's 12-year time bar. The intermediate appellate court affirmed. SCOTUS held that the Act's 12-year provision was a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule and, thus, reversed and remanded. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Summary: Montana property owners sued the United States under the Quiet Title Act, alleging that the Government's 1962 road easement on their property did not permit public access. The Government successfully moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing that the property owners' claim was barred by the Act's 12-year time bar. The intermediate appellate court affirmed. SCOTUS held that the Act's 12-year provision was a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule and, thus, reversed and remanded. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
.png)
Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools
March 21, 2023
Docket: 21-887
Citation: 598 U.S. 142
Topic(s): Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, Americans with Disabilities Act, ADA, Statutory Interpretation, Administrative Exhaustion, Hearing Impaired
Summary: A deaf student argued that his school district violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to accommodate his disability in public school and preventing him from graduating. The school district successfully moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required the student to first exhaust administrative procedures under that statute before suing under the ADA for compensatory damages. SCOTUS held that the student was not required to exhaust administrative procedures under the IDEA before filing suit for compensatory damages under the ADA. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Summary: A deaf student argued that his school district violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to accommodate his disability in public school and preventing him from graduating. The school district successfully moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required the student to first exhaust administrative procedures under that statute before suing under the ADA for compensatory damages. SCOTUS held that the student was not required to exhaust administrative procedures under the IDEA before filing suit for compensatory damages under the ADA. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
.png)
Delaware v. Pennsylvania
February 28, 2023
Docket: 145, Orig.
Citation: 598 U.S. 115
Topic(s): Escheatment, Financial Products, Agent Checks, Teller's Checks, Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler's Checks Act, Statutory Interpretation
Summary: State governments disagreed about the application of escheatment laws and the federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler's Checks Act (FDA) to financial products sold by banks (Agent Checks and Teller's Checks). SCOTUS, exercising original jurisdiction, held that the instruments at issue were sufficiently similar to Money Orders and, thus, their disposition was governed by the FDA. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Summary: State governments disagreed about the application of escheatment laws and the federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler's Checks Act (FDA) to financial products sold by banks (Agent Checks and Teller's Checks). SCOTUS, exercising original jurisdiction, held that the instruments at issue were sufficiently similar to Money Orders and, thus, their disposition was governed by the FDA. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
.png)
Bittner v. United States
February 28, 2023
Docket: 21-1195
Citation: 598 U.S. 85
Topic(s): Bank Secrecy Act, Statutory Interpretation
Summary: The Government fined an individual $2.72 million for failing to file timely reports disclosing 272 foreign accounts as required by the Bank Secrecy Act. The individual challenged the fine, arguing that it should have been calculated based on the number of untimely reports, not the number of accounts involved. SCOTUS held that under the Act, the maximum penalty for a nonwillful failure to file a report accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Summary: The Government fined an individual $2.72 million for failing to file timely reports disclosing 272 foreign accounts as required by the Bank Secrecy Act. The individual challenged the fine, arguing that it should have been calculated based on the number of untimely reports, not the number of accounts involved. SCOTUS held that under the Act, the maximum penalty for a nonwillful failure to file a report accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
.png)
Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
February 22, 2023
Docket: 21-908
Citation: 598 U.S. 69
Topic(s): Bankruptcy, Fraud
Summary: Homebuyer obtained a judgment against sellers for failing to disclose material defect in the home. One of the sellers sought to discharge the judgment in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings because she did not know about the defect. SCOTUS held that the judgment could not be discharged because a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for a third party's fraud regardless of her own culpability. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Summary: Homebuyer obtained a judgment against sellers for failing to disclose material defect in the home. One of the sellers sought to discharge the judgment in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings because she did not know about the defect. SCOTUS held that the judgment could not be discharged because a bankruptcy debtor can be held liable for a third party's fraud regardless of her own culpability. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Helix Energy Sols. Group, Inc. v. Hewitt
February 22, 2023
Docket: 21-984
Citation: 598 U.S. 39
Topic(s): Employment Law, Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Regulatory Interpretation
Summary: Plaintiff, an offshore oil rig worker who earned more than $200,000 per year as a daily-rate employee with no overtime compensation, argued that he was a non-exempt employee and thus entitled to overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). SCOTUS agreed and held that daily-rate workers, regardless of their income level, qualify as non-exempt and are entitled to overtime compensation if the conditions for exempt status in the relevant regulations are not met.
Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Cruz v. Arizona
February 22, 2023
Docket: 21-846
Citation: 598 U.S. 17
Topic(s): Criminal Procedure, Post-Conviction Relief
Summary: Criminal defendant found guilty of capital murder argued that he should have been allowed to inform the jury that, under Arizona law, a life sentence would be without parole. SCOTUS reversed and remanded, holding that the Arizona Supreme Court's determination that a state rule of criminal procedure prevented post-conviction relief was not a valid and separate state-law basis for the judgment against the defendant sufficient to foreclose a federal claim. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Summary: Criminal defendant found guilty of capital murder argued that he should have been allowed to inform the jury that, under Arizona law, a life sentence would be without parole. SCOTUS reversed and remanded, holding that the Arizona Supreme Court's determination that a state rule of criminal procedure prevented post-conviction relief was not a valid and separate state-law basis for the judgment against the defendant sufficient to foreclose a federal claim. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Arellano v. McDonough
January 23, 2023
Docket: 21-432
Citation: 598 U.S. 1
Topic(s): Veteran Benefits, Equitable Tolling, Statutory Interpretation
Summary: Military veteran argued that his application for disability compensation was timely filed because equitable tolling applied during the thirty-year period his disability prevented him from seeking benefits. SCOTUS held that equitable tolling did not apply. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript
Summary: Military veteran argued that his application for disability compensation was timely filed because equitable tolling applied during the thirty-year period his disability prevented him from seeking benefits. SCOTUS held that equitable tolling did not apply. Written Opinion | Argument Audio | Argument Transcript