SCOTUS just overturned Chevron deference. Our PDF examines its history, application, and evolution.

Supreme Court cases, October term 2015-2016

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The unexpected death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016, created the possibility that the court would issue numerous 4-4 decisions in the 2015-2016 term. The court was mostly able to avoid deadlocking, issuing just four 4-4 ties in the 81 decisions delivered during the term. Two of the 4-4 splits were in major cases—Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association and United States v. Texas.[1] In those cases, the lower court's ruling was upheld. To read more about those cases and other major cases heard by the Supreme Court in the 2015-2016 session, click here. For information on the process to fill Scalia's seat, click here.

Below is a brief summary of the questions the court considered in each case in the 2015-2016 term. Click here to read about cases heard in the 2016-2017 term. For more on major cases heard in other terms, click on the following links: 2012, 2013, and 2014.

October sitting

OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs

Questions presented:
  • "Whether, for purposes of determining when an entity is an 'agent' of a 'foreign state' under the first clause of the commercial activity exception of the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), the express definition of 'agency' in the FSIA, the factors set forth in First National City Bank v. Banco para el Comercio Exterior de Cuba (Bancec), 462 U.S. 611 (1983), or common law principles of agency, control."

  • "Whether, under the first clause of the commercial activity exception of the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2), a tort claim for personal injuries suffered in connection with travel outside of the United States is 'based upon' the allegedly tortious conduct occurring outside of the United States or the preceding sale of the ticket in the United States for the travel entirely outside the United States."[2]

Argued: October 5, 2015

Decided: December 1, 2015

Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymond

The court will consider the following questions:
  • Question 1: "Are 'primarily and unconditionally liable' spousal guarantors unambiguously excluded from being ECOA 'applicants' because they are not integrally part of 'any aspect of a credit transaction'?"
  • Question 2: "Did the Federal Reserve Board have authority under the ECOA to include by regulation spousal guarantors as 'applicants' to further the purposes of eliminating discrimination against married women?"[4]

Argued: October 5, 2015

Decided: March 22, 2016

Ocasio v. United States

Question presented:
  • "Does a conspiracy to commit extortion require that the conspirators agree to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy?"[6]

Argued: October 6, 2015

Decided: May 2, 2016

DirecTV v. Imburgia

See also: DirecTV v. Imburgia
Question presented:
  • "Whether the California Court of Appeal erred by holding, in direct conflict with the Ninth Circuit, that a reference to state law in an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act requires the application of state law preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act."[8]

Argued: October 6, 2015

Decided: December 14, 2015

Kansas v. Carr & Kansas v. Gleason

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
  • Kansas v. Carr, Jonathan (14-449) and Kansas v. Carr, Reginald (14-450) were consolidated by the court.
  • The court allocated one hour of argument for Kansas v. Carr and Kansas v. Gleason.
The court limited the argument to the following questions:
  • 1. "Whether the Eighth Amendment requires that a capital-sentencing jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances 'need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,' as the Kansas Supreme Court held here, or instead whether the Eighth Amendment is satisfied by instructions that, in context, make clear that each juror must individually assess and weigh any mitigating circumstances?"
  • 2. "Whether the trial court's decision not to sever the sentencing phase of the co-defendant brothers' trial here-a decision that comports with the traditional approach preferring joinder in circumstances like this-violated an Eighth Amendment right to an 'individualized sentencing' determination and was not harmless in any event?"[10][11][12]

Argued: October 7, 2015

Decided: January 20, 2016

  • In an 8-1 decision, the court reversed the judgment of the Kansas Supreme Court and remanded the cases. The court held that "The Eighth Amendment does not require capital-sentencing courts to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt."[13]
  • Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the court: SupremeCourt.gov, Kansas v. Carr

Montgomery v. Louisiana

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
Question presented:
  • "Whether Miller adopts a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review to people condemned as juveniles to die in prison?"[14]
  • The court also directed the petitioner and respondent to address the following question: "Do we have jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect in this case to our decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. __ (2012)?”[14]

Argued: October 13, 2015

Decided:

Hurst v. Florida

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
The court limited the argument to the following question:
  • "Whether Florida's death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002)."[16]

Argued: October 13, 2015

Decided: January 12, 2016

FERC v. Electric Power Supply and EnerNOC v. Electric Power Supply Assoc.

See also: FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association

  • The court consolidated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v. Electric Power Supply Association (14-840) and EnerNOC v. Electric Power Supply Assoc. (14-841).
The court limited the argument to the following question:
  • 1. "Whether the Federal Energy Commission reasonably concluded that it has the authority under the Federal Powers Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a et seq., to regulate the rules used by operators of wholesale electricity markets to pay for reduction in electricity consumption and to recoup those payments through adjustments to wholesale rates."
  • 2. "Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the rule issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is arbitrary and capricious."[18][19]

Argued: October 14, 2015

Decided: January 25, 2016

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim."
  • 2. "Whether the answer to the first question is any different when the plaintiff has asserted a class claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but receives an offer of complete relief before any class is certified."
  • 3. "Whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940), for government contractors is restricted to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects."[21]

Argued: October 14, 2015

Decided: January 20, 2016

  • In a 6-3 decision, the court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. The court held that "1. An unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff’s case, so the District Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate Gomez’s complaint. 2. Campbell’s status as a federal contractor does not entitle it to immunity from suit for its violation of the TCPA."
  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court: SupremeCourt.gov, "Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez

November sitting

Spokeo v. Robins

Question presented:
  • "Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute."[22]

Argued: November 2, 2015

Decided: May 16, 2016

  • A seven-justice majority of the court vacated the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case back to that court for additional consideration. The Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit conducted an incomplete Article III analysis of the respondent's standing to claim an injury-in-fact.
  • Justice Samuel Alito authored the opinion of the court.[23]

Foster v. Chatman

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
Question presented:
  • "Did the Georgia courts err in failing to recognize race discrimination under Batson in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case?"[24]

Argued: November 2, 2015

Decided: May 23, 2016

  • A seven-justice majority of the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia and held that the Georgia court erred in dismissing a defendant's claim of purposeful discrimination during voir dire.[25]
  • Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court.

Torres v. Lynch

Question presented:
  • "Whether a state offense constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), on the ground that the state offense is 'described in' a specified federal statute, where the federal statute includes an interstate commerce element that the state offense lacks."[26]

Argued: November 3, 2015

Decided: May 19, 2016

Lockhart v. U.S.

Question presented:
  • "Whether § 2252(b)(2)'s mandatory minimum sentence is triggered by a prior conviction under a state law relating to 'aggravated sexual abuse' or 'sexual abuse,' even though the conviction did not 'involv[e] a minor or ward,' an issue that divides the federal courts of appeals."[28]

Argued: November 3, 2015

Decided: March 1, 2016

Bruce v. Samuels

Question presented:
  • "When a prisoner files more than one case or appeal in the federal courts in forma pauperis, does § 1915(b)(2) cap the monthly exaction of filing fees at 20% of the prisoner's monthly income regardless of the number of cases or appeals for which he owes filing fees?"[30]

Argued: November 4, 2015

Decided: January 12, 2016

Shapiro v. McManus

Question presented:
  • "May a single-judge district court determine that a complaint covered by 28 U.S.C. § 2284 is insubstantial, and that three judges therefore are not required, not because it concludes that the complaint is wholly frivolous, but because it concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6)?"[32]

Argued: November 4, 2015

Decided: December 8, 2015

Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan

Question presented:
  • "Does a lawsuit by an ERISA fiduciary against a participant to recover an alleged overpayment by the plan seek 'equitable relief' within the meaning of ERISA section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3), if the fiduciary has not identified a particular fund that is in the participant's possession and control at the time the fiduciary asserts its claim?"[34]

Argued: November 9, 2015

Decided: January 20, 2016

Luis v. U.S.

Question presented:
  • "Whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant's legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."[36]

Argued: November 10, 2015

Decided: March 30, 2016

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Whether differences among individual class members may be ignored and a class action certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified under the Fair Labor Standards Act, where liability and damages will be determined with statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to the average observed in a sample.
  • 2. "Whether a class action may be certified or maintained under Rule 23(b)(3), or a collective action certified or maintained under the Fair Labor Standards Act, when the class contains hundreds of members who were not injured and have no legal right to any damages."[38]

Argued: November 10, 2015

Decided: March 22, 2016

  • A majority of the court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. The court agreed that the district court did not err in certifying and maintaining a class action under Rule 23 (b) (3) or a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act despite differences among the plaintiff class inasmuch as each of the individual plaintiffs' cases asked the same central question. This held true even if some plaintiffs were not injured and, thus, had no legal right to damages.[39]
  • Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court: SupremeCourt.gov, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo

December sitting

Musacchio v. U.S.

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine requires the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case to be measured against the elements described in the jury instructions where those instructions, without objection, require the government to prove additional or more stringent elements than do the statute and indictment?"
  • 2. "Whether a statute-of-limitations defense not raised at or before trial is reviewable on appeal?"[40]

Argued: November 30, 2015

Decided: January 25, 2016

Green v. Brennan

Question presented:
  • "Under federal employment discrimination law, does the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begin to run when an employee resigns, as five circuits have held, or at the time of an employer's last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation, as three other circuits have held?"[42]

Argued: November 30, 2015

Decided: May 23, 2016

  • A seven-justice majority of the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and remanded the case back to that court for additional proceedings. The Supreme Court held that a 45-day limitations period for filing a constructive discharge claim begins when the employee resigns because the circumstances which are "alleged to be discriminatory" must also include the employee's decision to resign.[43]
  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. U.S.

The court limited the argument to the following question:
  • "Whether the D. C. Circuit misapplied this Court’s Holland decision when it ruled that the Tribe was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act?"[44]

Argued: December 1, 2015

Decided: January 25, 2016

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Manning

Question presented:
  • "Whether § 27 of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 provides federal jurisdiction over state-Iaw claims seeking to establish liability based on violations of the Act or its regulations or seeking to enforce duties created by the Act or its regulations."[46]

Argued: December 1, 2015

Decided: May 16, 2016

  • The eight sitting justices agreed to affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. A six-justice majority found that Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 establishes the same jurisdictional test as the general federal question statute (28 U.S.C. §1331) for cases arising under the Exchange Act.[47]
  • Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.

Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Question presented:
  • "Did the Second Circuit -in a 2-1 panel decision that disregarded the considered opinion advanced by the United States as amicus -err in holding that ERISA preempts Vermont's health care database law as applied to the third-party administrator for a self-funded ERISA plan?"[48]

Argued: December 2, 2015

Decided: March 1, 2016

Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Question presented:
  • "Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?"[50]

Argued: December 7, 2015

Decided: June 23, 2016

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

The court limited the argument to the following questions:
  • 1. "Whether Nevada may refuse to extend to sister States haled into Nevada courts the same immunities Nevada enjoys in those courts."
  • 2. "Whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into the courts of another State without its consent, should be overruled."[52]

Argued: December 7, 2015

Decided: April 19, 2016

  • The Supreme Court divided 4-4 on the issue of whether to overturn Nevada v. Hall, thus affirming the Supreme Court of Nevada's claim of jurisdiction over a California state agency in this case. The court subsequently vacated and remanded the judgment of the Supreme Court of Nevada, holding that court's application of Nevada's damages law against California violated the Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution in awarding a private citizen greater damages than Nevada law would allow against its own state agencies.[53]
  • Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court: SupremeCourt.gov, Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
The court limited the argument to the following questions:
  • 1."Does the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justify intentionally creating over-populated legislative districts that result in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the oneperson, one-vote principle?"
  • 2."Does the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permit the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle? And, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, is this still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013)?"[54]

Argued: December 8, 2015

Decided: April 20, 2016

Evenwel v. Abbott

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
Question presented:
  • "[W]hether the 'one-person, one-vote' principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process does not deny voters an equal vote."[56]

Argued: December 8, 2015

Decided: April 4, 2016

Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
Question presented:
  • "Whether the Fifth Circuit's re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013)."[58]

Argued: December 9, 2015

Decided: June 23, 2016

  • By a 4-3 vote, the court held that the university’s race-conscious undergraduate admissions program did not violate the Equal Protection Clause; however, in his opinion for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy stipulated that "a college must continually reassess its need for race-conscious review ... The Court’s affirmance of the University’s admissions policy today does not necessarily mean the University may rely on that same policy without refinement. It is the University’s ongoing obligation to engage in constant deliberation and continued reflection regarding its admissions policies." Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case.[59]
  • Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court.

January sitting

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
Questions presented:
  • 1. "Whether Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977), should be overruled and public-sector 'agency shop' arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment."
  • 2. "Whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech."[24]

Argued: January 11, 2016

Decided: March 29, 2016

Molina-Martinez v. United States

Question presented:
  • "Where an error in the application of the United States Sentencing Guidelines results in the application of the wrong Guideline range to a criminal defendant, should an appellate court presume, for purposes of plain-error review under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), that the error affected the defendant's substantial rights?"[61]

Argued: January 12, 2016

Decided: April 20, 2016

Duncan v. Owens

Question presented:
  • "Did the Seventh Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and a long line of this Court's decisions by awarding habeas relief in the absence of clearly established precedent from this Court?"[63]

Argued: January 12, 2016

Decided: January 20, 2016

Bank Markazi v. Peterson

Question presented:
  • "Whether §8772 - a statute that effectively directs a particular result in a single

pending case - violates the separation of powers."[65]

Argued: January 13, 2016

Decided: April 20, 2016

Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle

Question presented:
  • "Whether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Federal Government are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution."[67]

Argued: January 13, 2016

Decided: June 9, 2016

  • A six-justice majority affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico in holding that Puerto Rico is not a separate sovereign government "deriving its power to punish from an independent source" under the meaning of the Sixth Amendment's double jeopardy clause. As such, Puerto Rico cannot successively prosecute an individual for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws if that individual has been prosecuted by the U.S. government.[68]
  • Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson

Question presented:
  • "Whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor's perception that the employee supports a political candidate."[69]

Argued: January 19, 2016

Decided: April 26, 2016

Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods

Question presented:
  • "Whether the Tenth Circuit wrongly deepened a pervasive circuit split among the federal circuits regarding whether the citizenship of a trust for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is based on the citizenship of the controlling trustees, the trust beneficiaries, or some combination of both."[71]

Argued: January 19, 2016

Decided: March 7, 2016

Nebraska v. Parker

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Whether ambiguous evidence concerning the first two Solem factors necessarily forecloses any possibility that diminishment could be found on a de facto basis."
  • 2. "Whether the original boundaries of the Omaha Indian Reservation were diminished following passage of the Act of August 7, 1882."[73]

Argued: January 20, 2016

Decided: March 22, 2016

Sturgeon v. Frost

Question presented:
  • "Whether Section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 prohibits the National Park Service from exercising regulatory control over State, Native Corporation, and private Alaska land physically located within the boundaries of the National Park System."[75]

Argued: January 20, 2016

Decided: March 22, 2016

February sitting

Kingdomware Technologies v. U.S.

Question presented:
  • "Whether the Federal Circuit erred in construing 38 U.S.C. § 8127(d)’s mandatory setaside restricting competition for Department of Veterans Affairs' contracts to veteran-owned small businesses as discretionary."[77]

Argued: February 22, 2016

Decided: June 16, 2016

Utah v. Strieff

Question presented:
  • "Should evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest on an outstanding warrant be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop later found to be unlawful?"[79]

Argued: February 22, 2016

Decided: June 20, 2016

  • The court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Utah. The court held that absent flagrant misconduct by police, evidence seized pursuant to a valid arrest warrant can be used in a criminal prosecution, even if police discover the evidence during an unconstitutional investigatory stop.[80]
  • Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.

  • The court consolidated Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. for one hour of oral argument.[81]
The court limited the argument to the following question in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.:
  • "Whether the Federal Circuit erred by applying a rigid, two-part test for enhancing patent infringement damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, that is the same as the rigid, two-part test this Court rejected last term in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014) for imposing attorney fees under the similarly-worded 35 U.S.C. § 285."[82]
Questions presented in Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.:
  • 1. "Has the Federal Circuit improperly abrogated the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284 by forbidding any award of enhanced damages unless there is a finding of willfulness under a rigid, two-part test, when this Court recently rejected an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute providing for attorneys' fee awards in exceptional cases?"
  • 2. "Does a district court have discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 284 to award enhanced damages where an infringer intentionally copied a direct competitor's patented invention, knew the invention was covered by multiple patents, and made no attempt to avoid infringing the patents on that invention?"[83]

Argued: February 23, 2016

Decided: June 13, 2016

Taylor v. United States

Question presented:
  • "Whether, in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §1951, the Government is relieved of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the interstate commerce element by relying exclusively on evidence that the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer is an inherent economic enterprise that satisfies, as a matter of law, the interstate commerce element of the offense."[85]

Argued: February 23, 2016

Decided: June 20, 2016

  • A seven-justice majority affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in holding that intrastate drug activities fall under Congressional regulation because these activities cumulatively affect interstate commerce. As such, an attempt to steal drugs and/or drug profits satisfies the commerce requirement for a federal criminal prosecution for robbery under the Hobbs Act.[86]
  • Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court.

Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC

  • The court consolidated Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC and CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC for one hour of oral argument.[87]
Questions presented in Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC:
  • 1. "When a seller offers to build generation and sell wholesale power on a fixed rate contract basis, does the FPA field-preempt a state order directing retail utilities to enter into the contract?"
  • 2. "Does FERC's acceptance of an annual regional capacity auction preempt states from requiring retail utilities to contract at fixed rates with sellers who are willing to commit to sell into the auction on a long-term basis?"[88]
Questions presented in CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC:
  • 1. "Where, as a result of a state-directed procurement, the contract price to build and operate a power plant is the developer's bid price, and may result in payments beyond what the developer earns selling the plant's capacity in the FERC-supervised auction, is the program 'field preempted' as a State's attempt to set interstate wholesale rates?"
  • 2. "Is a state-directed contract to support construction of a power plant 'conflict preempted' because its long-term pricing structure provides incentives different from the incentives provided by prices generated in the FERC-supervised yearly capacity auction?"[89]

Argued: February 24, 2016

Decided: April 18, 2016

Williams v. Pennsylvania

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated where the presiding Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court declines to recuse himself in a capital case where he had personally approved the decision to pursue capital punishment against Petitioner in his prior capacity as elected District Attorney and continued to head the District Attorney's Office that defended the death verdict on appeal; where, in his State Supreme Court election campaign, the Chief Justice expressed strong support for capital punishment, with reference to the number of defendants he had 'sent' to death row, including Petitioner; and where he then, as Chief Justice, reviewed a ruling by the state post- conviction court that his office committed prosecutorial misconduct under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it prosecuted and sought death against Petitioner?"
  • 2. "Are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated by the participation of a potentially biased jurist on a multimember tribunal deciding a capital case, regardless of whether his vote is ultimately decisive?"[91]

Argued: February 29, 2016

Decided: June 9, 2016

  • A five-justice majority vacated the judgment of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, holding that "where a judge has had an earlier significant, personal involvement as a prosecutor in a critical decision" in a defendant’s case, that judge is obligated to recuse herself under the due process guarantees of the 14th Amendment.[92]
  • Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court.

Voisine v. United States

The court limited the argument to the following question:
  • "Does a misdemeanor crime with the mens rea of recklessness qualify as a 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence' as defined by 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(33)(A) and 922(g)(9)?"[93]

Argued: February 29, 2016

Decided: June 27, 2016

  • A six-justice majority affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in holding that a "reckless domestic assault qualifies as a 'misdemeanor crime of domestic violence'" under 18 U.S.C. §922 (g) (9) and, as such, a person convicted of the misdemeanor crime of reckless domestic assault may be prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal law.[94]
  • Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.

Husky Electronics, Inc., v. Ritz

The question presented is:
  • "Whether the 'actual fraud' bar to discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code applies only when the debtor has made a false representation, or whether the bar also applies when the debtor has deliberately obtained money through a fraudulent transfer scheme that was actually intended to cheat a creditor."[95]

Argued: March 1, 2016

Decided: May 16, 2016

Nichols v. U.S.

The court limited the argument to the following question:
  • "Whether 42 U.S.C. § 16913(a) requires a sex offender who resides in a foreign country to update his registration in the jurisdiction where he formerly resided, a question that divides the courts of appeals?"[97]

Argued: March 1, 2016

Decided: April 4, 2016

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
Questions presented:
  • 1. "When applying this standard, does a court err by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government's interest in promoting health?"
  • 2. "Did the Fifth Circuit err in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State's interest in promoting health-or any other valid interest?"[99]

Argued: March 2, 2016

Decided: June 27, 2016

  • A five-justice majority reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in holding that provisions in Texas law mandating (a) that physicians who perform abortions have active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of a facility in which abortions are performed, and (b) that abortion facilities must meet minimum standards under Texas law parallel to those of an ambulatory surgical center, both imposed unconstitutional undue burdens on a woman's right to an abortion.[100]
  • Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court.

March sitting

Wittman v. Personhuballah

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Did the court below err in failing to make the required finding that race rather than politics predominated in District 3, where there is no dispute that politics explains the Enacted Plan?"
  • 2. "Did the court below err in relieving Plaintiffs of their burden to show an alternative plan that achieves the General Assembly's political goals, is comparably consistent with traditional districting principles, and brings about greater racial balance than the Enacted Plan?"
  • 3. "Regardless of any other error, was the court below's finding of a Shaw violation based on clearly erroneous fact-finding?"
  • 4. "Did the majority err in holding that the Enacted Plan fails strict scrutiny because it increased District 3's black voting-age population percentage above the benchmark percentage, when the undisputed evidence establishes that the increase better complies with neutral principles than would reducing the percentage and no racial bloc voting analysis would support a reduction capable of realistically securing Section 5 preclearance?"

The court also directed the parties to brief and argue the following question:

  • "Whether appellants lack standing because none reside in or represent the only congressional district whose constitutionality is at issue in this case."[101]

Argued: March 21, 2016

Decided: May 23, 2016

  • A unanimous court dismissed petitioners' appeal for want of standing.[102]
  • Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court.

RJR Nabisco v. European Community

Question presented:
  • "Whether, or to what extent, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ('RICO') applies extraterritorially."[103]

Argued: March 21, 2016

Decided: June 20, 2016

  • A 4-3 court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The court held that while some illegal activities under a federal racketeering law (RICO) which occur overseas can come under U.S. jurisdiction, a civil RICO plaintiff must prove a domestic injury because RICO does not allow for any recovery of foreign injuries. Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not participate in the case.[104]
  • Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court.

Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust

  • The court consolidated Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust and Melba Acosta-Febo v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust.
Question presented:
  • "Whether Chapter 9 of the federal Bankruptcy Code, which does not apply to Puerto Rico, nonetheless preempts a Puerto Rico statute creating a mechanism for the Commonwealth's public utilities to restructure their debts."[105][106]

Argued: March 22, 2016

Decided: June 13, 2016

Simmons v. Himmelreich

The question presented is:
  • "Whether a final judgment in an action brought under Section 1346(b) dismissing the claim on the ground that relief is precluded by one of the FTCA's exceptions to liability, 28 U.S.C. 2680, bars a subsequent action by the claimant against the federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA claim."[108]

Argued: March 22, 2016

Decided: June 6, 2016

  • A unanimous court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) allows individuals to seek damages from the U.S. for torts committed by federal employees, however a certain section of the law, Chapter 171, addresses exceptions to permissible tort claims. The respondent, Himmelreich, filed two separate FTCA suits, the first of which was dismissed by the district court. Himmelreich’s second suit was filed prior to the dismissal of his first suit. The question in this case was whether one of the Chapter 171 provisions, the judgment bar provision – which bars a future suit against an individual employee once a judgment in an FTCA suit is reached – was applicable to Himmelreich’s second suit once Himmelreich’s first suit was dismissed. The court agreed with the Sixth Circuit that the judgment bar provision did not apply to Himmelreich’s second suit.[109]
  • Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the court.

Zubik v. Burwell

See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
  • The following cases objecting to the Affordable Care Act’s birth-control mandate were consolidated by the court.
    • Zubik v. Burwell
    • Priests for Life v. Burwell
    • Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Burwell
    • East Texas Baptist University v. Burwell
    • Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell
    • Southern Nazarene University v. Burwell
    • Geneva College v. Burwell
The court limited the argument to the following question:
  • "Whether the HHS Mandate and its 'accommodation' violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) by forcing religious nonprofits to act in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, when the Government has not proven that this compulsion is the least restrictive means of advancing any compelling interest."[110]

Argued: March 23, 2016

Decided: May 16, 2016

  • In a per curiam opinion, the court vacated the judgments of the various circuit courts in the conjoined cases. The court further remanded each case so that the parties have "an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners' religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners' health plans 'receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage'."[111]

CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC

Question presented:
  • "Whether a dismissal of a Title VII case, based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's total failure to satisfy its pre-suit investigation, reasonable cause, and conciliation obligations, can form the basis of a attorney's fee award to the defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k)?"[112]

Argued: March 28, 2016

Decided: May 19, 2016

  • A unanimous court vacated the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit. In so doing, the court remanded the case back to the 8th Circuit for additional proceedings. The court found that the 8th Circuit's holding that a Title VII defendant only prevails by obtaining a "ruling on the merits" was in error, and that a favorable ruling on the merits is not a necessary predicate to find a defendant has prevailed.[113]
  • Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court.

Betterman v. Montana

Question presented:
  • "Whether the Sixth Amendment's Speedy Trial Clause applies to the sentencing phase of a criminal prosecution, protecting a criminal defendant from inordinate delay in final disposition of his case."[114]

Argued: March 28, 2016

Decided: May 19, 2016

Sheriff v. Gillie

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Are special counsel-lawyers appointed by the Attorney General to undertake his duty to collect debts owed to the State-state 'officers' within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (C)?"
  • 2. "Is it materially misleading under 15 U.S.C. § 1692e for special counsel to use Attorney General letterhead to convey that they are collecting debts owed to the State on behalf of the Attorney General?"[116]

Argued: March 29, 2016

Decided: May 16, 2016

Ross v. Blake

Question presented:
  • "Did the Fourth Circuit misapply this Court's precedents in holding, in conflict with several other federal courts of appeals, that there is a common law 'special circumstances' exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act that relieves an inmate of his mandatory obligation to exhaust administrative remedies when the inmate erroneously believes that he satisfied exhaustion by participating in an internal investigation?"[118]

Argued: March 29, 2016

Decided: June 6, 2016

  • A unanimous court vacated and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The Supreme Court held that the Fourth Circuit's unwritten "special circumstances" rule excusing a failure to comply with certain administrative procedural requirements was inconsistent with the text and history of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) of 1995.[119]
  • Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.

Welch v. United States

Questions presented:
  • "Whether the District Court was in error when it denied relief on Petitioner's §2255 motion to vacate, which alleged that a prior Florida conviction for 'sudden snatching,' did not qualify for ACCA enhancement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §924(e)."
  • "Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to cases that are on collateral review. Furthermore, Petitioner ask this Court to resolve the Circuit split which has developed on the question of Johnson retroactivity in the Seventh and the Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals."[120]

Argued: March 30, 2016

Decided: April 18, 2016

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.

Question presented:
  • "Whether the United States Army Corps of Engineers' determination that the property at issue contains 'waters of the United States' protected by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1362(7); see 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., constitutes 'final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court,' 5 U.S.C. 704, and is therefore subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq."[122]

Argued: March 30, 2016

Decided: May 31, 2016

April sitting

United States v. Texas

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Whether a State that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., to challenge the Guidance because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action."
  • 2. "Whether the Guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law."
  • 3. "Whether the Guidance was subject to the APA's notice-and-comment procedures."

The court also directed the parties to address the following question:

  • "Whether the guidance violates the take care clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §3."[124]

Argued: April 18, 2016

Decided: June 23, 2016

U.S. v. Bryant

Question presented:
  • "[W]hether reliance on valid uncounseled tribal-court misdemeanor convictions to prove Section 117(a)'s predicate-offense element violates the Constitution."[126]

Argued: April 19, 2016

Decided: June 13, 2016

  • A unanimous court reversed and remanded the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court held that uncounseled convictions obtained under the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) of 1968 count as predicate convictions making a defendant eligible for classification and prosecution under federal domestic violence law as a "serial offender."[127]
  • Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the court.

Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar

The court limited the argument to the following questions:
  • 1. "Whether the 'implied certification' theory of legal falsity under the FCA-applied by the First Circuit below but recently rejected by the Seventh Circuit is viable."
  • 2. "If the 'implied certification' theory is viable, whether a government contractor's reimbursement claim can be legally 'false' under that theory if the provider failed to comply with a statute, regulation, or contractual provision that does not state that it is a condition of payment, as held by the First, Fourth, and D.C. Circuits; or whether liability for a legally 'false' reimbursement claim requires that the statute, regulation, or contractual provision expressly state that it is a condition of payment, as held by the Second and Sixth Circuits."[128]

Argued: April 19, 2016

Decided: June 16, 2016

  • In a unanimous opinion, the court reversed and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit. The court held that "implied false certification theory can be a basis for liability" under the False Claims Act, and that not every undisclosed violation of an express condition of payment automatically triggers liability. The court established that a requirement of "rigorous materiality" must be enforced in determining whether a defendant knowingly violated an express condition of payment.[129]
  • Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the opinion of the court.

Birchfield v. North Dakota

The court consolidated the following cases: Birchfield v. North Dakota, Bernard v. Minnesota and Beylund v. Levi.

Question presented:
  • "Whether, in the absence of a warrant, a State may make it a crime for a person to refuse to take a chemical test to detect the presence of alcohol in the person's blood."[130][131][132]

Argued: April 20, 2016

Decided: June 23, 2016

  • In the case, which was consolidated with two other cases - Bernard v. Minnesota and Beylund v. Levi - the court held that, incident to a lawful arrest for DUI, the use of warrantless blood tests to determine a driver’s BAC is unconstitutional, and that state laws which criminalize a suspect’s refusal to submit to a warrantless blood test are also unconstitutional. States, however, may continue to use warrantless breath tests under similar circumstances for similar purposes.[133]
  • Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the court.

Encino Motorcars v. Navarro

Question presented:
  • "Whether 'service advisors' at car dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C. §213(b)(10)(A) from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirements."[134]

Argued: April 20, 2016

Decided: June 20, 2016

  • The court vacated and remanded the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A six-justice majority declined to address whether automobile dealership service advisors are exempted from overtime pay under §213(b)(10)(A), a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act governing automobile dealership employees. Instead, the court held that a 2011 Labor Department rule modifying the exemption was not adequately explained and, as such, could not be afforded Chevron deference. Chevron deference suggests courts defer to an agency’s regulatory interpretation of a statute if (a) Congressional intent is ambiguous, and (b) if the agency’s interpretation is reasonable; Chevron deference is not required, however, if the regulation is considered "procedurally defective." The court sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit to review the constitutionality of §213(b)(10)(A) exempting automobile dealership employees without affording Chevron deference to the 2011 Labor Department regulation.[135]
  • Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons

Question presented:
  • "What is the appropriate standard for awarding attorneys' fees to a prevailing party under § 505 of the Copyright Act?"[136]

Argued: April 25, 2016

Decided: June 16, 2016

  • In a unanimous opinion, the court vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. The court held that a district court "should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s position" when awarding attorneys’ fees in certain cases implicating the Copyright Act.[137]
  • Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.

Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that, in IPR proceedings, the Board may construe claims in an issued patent according to their broadest reasonable interpretation rather than their plain and ordinary meaning."
  • 2. "Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that, even if the Board exceeds its statutory authority in instituting an IPR proceeding, the Board's decision whether to institute an IPR proceeding is judicially unreviewable."[138]

Argued: April 25, 2016

Decided: June 20, 2016

  • The court affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in holding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s rulemaking authority allows the Office to regulate patent challenges falling under the statutory definition of "inter partes review" as long as the regulations are reasonable exercises of the Office’s authority. Inter partes review allows a third party to both challenge a patent claim and to request review of the challenge before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board as long as the challenge is filed within a statutory time limit.[139]
  • Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court.

Mathis v. United States

  • April 26, 2016
Question presented:
  • "Whether a predicate prior conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(l), must qualify as such under the elements of the offense simpliciter, without extending the modified categorical approach to separate statutory definitional provisions that merely establish the means by which referenced elements may be satisfied rather than stating alternative elements or versions of the offense?"[140]

Argued: April 26, 2016

Decided: June 23, 2016

  • A six-justice majority reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in finding that state court convictions cannot be used towards issuing an enhanced sentence under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act if elements of a state criminal law defining a crime (here, robbery) are broader than the generic, commonly understood elements that define a crime.[141]
  • Justice Elena Kagan delivered the opinion of the court.

Dietz v. Bouldin

Question presented:
  • "Whether, after a judge has discharged a jury from service in a case and the jurors have left the judge's presence, the judge may recall the jurors for further service in the same case."[142]

Argued: April 26, 2016

Decided: June 9, 2016

McDonnell v. United States

The court limited the argument to the following question:
  • "Whether 'official action' is limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional."[144]

Argued: April 27, 2016

Decided: June 27, 2016

  • The court unanimously reversed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. The Supreme Court elucidated the meaning of what constitutes "official action" by government officials under federal bribery statutes. After clarifying the law, the court vacated McDonnell's conviction and remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit to address whether there is sufficient evidence to retry McDonnell in light of the Supreme Court's elucidation of the statute.

[145]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ The Hill, "Supreme Court limps to finish," accessed June 27, 2016
  2. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs," accessed September 7, 2015
  3. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Syllabus: OBB Personenverkehr AG v. Sachs," accessed December 2, 2015
  4. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymond," accessed September 7, 2015
  5. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Hawkins v. Community Bank, March 22, 2016
  6. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Ocasio v. United States," accessed September 7, 2015
  7. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Ocasio v. United States, May 2, 2016
  8. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "DirecTV v. Imburgia," accessed September 7, 2015
  9. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Syllabus: DirecTV v. Imburgia," accessed December 14, 2015
  10. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Kansas v. Carr (14-449)," accessed September 7, 2015
  11. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Kansas v. Carr (14-450)," accessed September 7, 2015
  12. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Kansas v. Gleason (14-452)," accessed September 7, 2015
  13. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Syllabus: Kansas v. Carr," accessed January 26, 2016
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 SupremeCourt.gov, "Montgomery v. Louisiana," accessed September 7, 2015
  15. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Syllabus: Montgomery v. Louisiana," accessed January 26, 2016
  16. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Hurst v. Florida," accessed September 7, 2015
  17. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Syllabus: Hurst v. Florida," accessed January 31, 2016
  18. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "FERC v. Electric Power Supply," accessed September 7, 2015
  19. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "EnerNOC v. Electric Power Supply Assoc.," accessed September 7, 2015
  20. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Syllabus: FERC v. Electric Power Supply," accessed January 26, 2016
  21. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez," accessed September 7, 2015
  22. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Spokeo v. Robins," accessed September 7, 2015
  23. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Spokeo v. Robins, decided May 16, 2016
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 SupremeCourt.gov, "Foster v. Chatman," accessed September 7, 2015 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "fvc" defined multiple times with different content
  25. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Foster v. Chatman, decided May 23, 2016
  26. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Torres v. Lynch," accessed September 7, 2015
  27. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Luna Torres v. Lynch, decided May 19, 2016
  28. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Lockhart v. U.S.," accessed September 7, 2015
  29. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Lockhart v. United States, March 1, 2016
  30. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Bruce v. Samuels," accessed September 7, 2015
  31. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Syllabus: Bruce v. Samuels," accessed February 1, 2016
  32. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Shapiro v. McManus," accessed September 7, 2015
  33. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Syllabus: Shapiro v. McManus," accessed December 14, 2015
  34. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan," accessed September 7, 2015
  35. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Syllabus: Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan," accessed February 1, 2016
  36. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Luis v. U.S.," accessed September 7, 2015
  37. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Luis v. United States, March 30, 2016
  38. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo," accessed September 7, 2015
  39. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, March 22, 2016
  40. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Musacchio v. U.S.," accessed September 7, 2015
  41. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Musacchio v. United States, January 25, 2016
  42. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Green v. Brennan," accessed September 7, 2015
  43. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Green v. Brennan, decided May 23, 2016
  44. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. U.S.," accessed September 7, 2015
  45. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, January 25, 2016
  46. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Manning," accessed September 7, 2015
  47. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Manning, decided May 16, 2016
  48. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company," accessed September 7, 2015
  49. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Gobielle v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, March 1, 2016
  50. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians," accessed September 7, 2015
  51. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, decided June 23, 2016
  52. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt," accessed September 7, 2015
  53. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, April 19, 2016
  54. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission," accessed September 7, 2015
  55. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, April 20, 2016
  56. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Evenwel v. Abbott," accessed September 7, 2015
  57. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Evenwel v. Abbott, April 4, 2016
  58. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin," accessed September 7, 2015
  59. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, decided June 23, 2016
  60. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, March 29, 2016
  61. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Molina-Martinez v. United States," accessed October 5, 2015
  62. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Molina-Martinez v. United States, April 20, 2016
  63. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Duncan, Warden v. Owens," accessed October 5, 2015
  64. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Duncan v. Owens, January 20, 2016
  65. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Bank Markazi v. Peterson," accessed October 5, 2015
  66. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Bank Markazi v. Peterson, April 20, 2016
  67. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Puerto Rico v. Valle," accessed October 5, 2015
  68. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, decided June 9, 2016
  69. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Heffernan v. City of Paterson," accessed October 5, 2015
  70. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Heffernan v. City of Paterson, New Jersey, April 26, 2016
  71. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods," accessed October 5, 2015
  72. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., March 7, 2016
  73. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Nebraska v. Parker," accessed October 5, 2015
  74. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Nebraska v. Parker, March 22, 2016
  75. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Sturgeon v. Frost," accessed October 5, 2015
  76. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Sturgeon v. Frost, March 22, 2016
  77. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Kingdomware Technologies v. U.S.," accessed September 7, 2015
  78. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Kingdomware Technologies, Inc. v. United States, decided June 16, 2016
  79. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Utah v. Strieff," accessed October 5, 2015
  80. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Utah v. Strieff, decided June 20, 2016
  81. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Orders," accessed October 19, 2015
  82. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.," accessed November 2, 2015
  83. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc.," accessed November 2, 2015
  84. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., decided June 13, 2016
  85. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Taylor v. United States," accessed October 5, 2015
  86. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Taylor v. U.S., decided June 20, 2016
  87. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Orders," accessed October 19, 2015
  88. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC," accessed November 2, 2015
  89. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC," accessed November 2, 2015
  90. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Hughes v. Talen Energy Merketing, LLC, April 18, 2016
  91. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Williams v. Pennsylvania," accessed October 5, 2015
  92. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Williams v. Pennsylvania, decided June 9, 2016
  93. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Voisine v. United States," accessed November 2, 2015
  94. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Voisine v. United States, decided June 27, 2016
  95. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Husky Electronics, Inc., v. Ritz," accessed November 9, 2015
  96. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Husky International Electronics v. Ritz, decided May 16, 2016
  97. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Nichols v. U.S.," accessed November 9, 2015
  98. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Nichols v. United States, April 4, 2016
  99. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt," accessed November 14, 2015
  100. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, decided June 27, 2016
  101. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Wittman v. Personhuballah," accessed November 18, 2015
  102. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Wittman v. Personhuballah, decided May 23, 2016
  103. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "RJR Nabisco v. European Community," accessed October 5, 2015
  104. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, decided June 20, 2016
  105. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust," accessed December 14, 2015
  106. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Melba Acosta-Febo v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust," accessed December 14, 2015
  107. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, decided June 13, 2016
  108. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Simmons v. Himmelreich," accessed November 9, 2015
  109. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Simmons v. Himmelreich, decided June 6, 2016
  110. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Zubik v. Burwell," accessed November 9, 2015
  111. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Zubik v. Burwell, decided May 16, 2016
  112. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, " CRST Van Expedited v. EEOC," accessed December 14, 2015
  113. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, decided May 19, 2016
  114. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Betterman v. Montana," accessed December 14, 2015
  115. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Betterman v. Montana, May 19, 2016
  116. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Sheriff v. Gillie," accessed December 14, 2015
  117. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Sheriff v. Gillie, decided May 16, 2016
  118. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Ross v. Blake," accessed December 14, 2015
  119. ↑ [www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-339_1b7d.pdf Supreme Court of the United States, Ross v. Blake, decided June 6, 2016]
  120. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Welch v. United States," accessed January 13, 2016
  121. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Welch v. United States, April 18, 2016
  122. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co.," accessed December 14, 2015
  123. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., decided May 31, 2016
  124. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, United States v. Texas, accessed January 27, 2016
  125. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Texas, decided June 23, 2016
  126. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "U.S. v. Bryant," accessed December 14, 2015
  127. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Bryant, decided June 13, 2016
  128. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar," accessed December 14, 2015
  129. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar, decided June 16, 2016
  130. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Birchfield v. North Dakota," accessed December 14, 2015
  131. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Bernard v. Minnesota," accessed December 14, 2015
  132. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Beylund v. Levi," accessed December 14, 2015
  133. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Birchfield v. North Dakota, decided June 23, 2016
  134. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, Encino Motorcars v. Navarro, accessed January 27, 2016
  135. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, decided June 20, 2016
  136. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, accessed January 27, 2016
  137. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Song, Inc., decided June 16, 2016
  138. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, accessed January 27, 2016
  139. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC v. Lee, decided June 20, 2016
  140. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, Mathis v. United States, accessed January 27, 2016
  141. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Mathis v. United States, decided June 23, 2016
  142. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, Dietz v. Bouldin, accessed January 27, 2016
  143. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Dietz v. Bouldin, decided June 9, 2016
  144. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, McDonnell v. United States, accessed January 27, 2016
  145. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, McDonnell v. United States, decided June 27, 2016
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2015-2016&oldid=8574670"