due process

Oral argument: Jan. 9, 2012

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Sep. 17, 2010)

After Petitioners Chantell and Michael Sackett began construction on their land, they received a compliance order from Respondent, the Environmental Protection Agency, informing them that their construction project violated the Clean Water Act because it filled in protected wetlands. The Sacketts sought pre-enforcement judicial review of the compliance order under the Administrative Procedure Act, but were denied. The Sacketts assert that Congress intended to provide for pre-enforcement judicial review, and that without such review, the compliance order violates their due process rights. The Environmental Protection Agency maintains that Congress intended to preclude judicial review of compliance orders under the Administrative Procedure Act because compliance orders are not self-executing. The Environmental Protection Agency argues that sufficient procedural safeguards exist under the Clean Water Act to provide adequate review before any penalties are enforced. The Supreme Court's decision will impact the ability of regulated parties to seek review of compliance orders, and will determine what methods the Environmental Protection Agency can utilize to respond to environmental emergencies.

Oral argument: Nov. 8, 2011

Appealed from: Supreme Court of Louisiana (Sep. 24, 2010)

Petitioner Juan Smith was the sole person convicted of killing five people in a Louisiana home. His conviction was primarily based on the testimony of a witness, a survivor of the shooting, who identified Smith as one of the gunmen responsible for the crime. In subsequent applications for review, Smith contended that his trial was unfair because the prosecution intentionally suppressed material evidence. In this case, Smith argues that the suppression of that evidence constituted a violation of his constitutional due process rights; he supports this argument by seeking to show that the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the jury’s verdict against him. While Smith insists that he is entitled to a new trial, Respondent Burl Cain, warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, insists that the evidence was neither material nor suppressed, thus opposing a new trial. This case may affect the standard to which a prosecutor is held with regard to disclosure of evidence.

Oral argument: Jan. 18, 2011

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (June 2, 2009)

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE, DUE PROCESS, NATIONAL SECURITY

In 1988, the United States Navy contracted with McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics Corporation to build stealth aircraft. In 1991, the Navy discontinued the stealth aircraft program and terminated the contract. McDonnell Douglas and General Dynamics sued in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that delays in the building of the aircraft were due to the government's failure to share information. The United States asserted the state secrets privilege, claiming that disclosure of this information would harm national security. The Federal Circuit ruled in favor of the United States, holding that the government could assert its termination claim against the contractors and invoke the state secrets privilege to preclude the contractors' defense. The Boeing Company (which merged with McDonnell Douglas during the litigation) and General Dynamics appealed, arguing that the government cannot maintain a claim against a party when it invokes the state secrets privilege to preclude that party from raising a defense in a civil case where the government is the moving party. The contractors also claimed the invocation of the privilege violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision will affect the use of the state secrets privilege to protect national security and the right of private litigants to assert defenses against government claims.

Oral argument: Jan. 11, 2011*

Appealed from: North Carolina Court of Appeals (Aug. 18, 2009)

GENERAL JURISDICTION, FOREIGN CORPORATION, SUFFICIENT CONTACTS, DUE PROCESS

Two North Carolina teenagers were killed in France when a tire, manufactured by Goodyear Luxembourg, malfunctioned and caused an accident. Their estates sued the foreign manufacturers of the defective tire for negligence in a North Carolina state court, and the state court found that it had general jurisdiction over the defendants and could hear the case. Goodyear Luxembourg argues that North Carolina does not have general jurisdiction because the company has no presence in or direct business with North Carolina. The teenagers' estates argue that the court properly found jurisdiction because Goodyear Luxembourg is part of the larger and highly integrated Goodyear enterprise, which does have significant contact with North Carolina. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine the ease with which plaintiffs may sue foreign manufacturers in state court, and could potentially affect commercial relations between the United States and other nations.

Oral argument: Jan. 12, 2009

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Jan. 8, 2009).

ADAM WALSH CHILD PROTECTION AND SAFETY ACT, FEDERALISM, DUE PROCESS, NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE, COMMERCE CLAUSE

Petitioner, the United States, argues that 18 U.S.C § 4248, which authorizes the civil commitment of “sexually dangerous” persons, is a constitutional exercise of Congressional power. Respondents, Graydon Earl Comstock Jr., et al. (“Comstock”), counter that civil commitment of an individual after the completion of a federal prison sentence exceeds Congressional power, because it (1) encroaches on states’ authority and (2) is neither necessary nor proper to operating a valid federal regulation. The Fourth Circuit rejected the United States’ argument that § 4248 is necessary and proper to its ability to maintain the federal penal system. The Supreme Court must now decide (1) whether § 4248 is incidental to Congress’ Article I powers and (2) whether civil commitment of individuals labeled “sexually dangerous” and already in federal custody or incompetent to stand trial is an encroachment on state power.

Oral argument: Dec. 1, 2009

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Dec. 10, 2008)

BANKRUPTCY, STUDENT LOANS, CHAPTER 13, DISCHARGE, RES JUDICATA, DUE PROCESS

Francisco J. Espinosa filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and proposed in his Chapter 13 reorganization plan that he would repay $13,250 in student loans to United Student Aid Funds (“Funds”). Although Funds claimed they were owed an additional $4,582.15, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona confirmed Espinosa's plan as proposed, and Funds did not object to the confirmed plan. Espinosa repaid all debts according to the Chapter 13 plan. Funds subsequently began to intercept Espinosa's income tax refunds, claiming that Espinosa had improperly discharged his student loans, because Espinosa had not initiated a statutorily required adversary proceeding to determine whether repayment of the student loans would constitute an "undue hardship." While the U.S. District Court of Arizona held that Espinosa had violated Funds' due process interests by failing to initiate an adversary proceeding and serve a complaint and summons upon Funds according to the statutory procedure, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, and Funds now appeals. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine how student loans and other debts are collected in bankruptcy and will affect the overall relationship between debtors and creditors in America.

Oral argument: Dec. 1, 2009

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (Sept. 4, 2008)

BANKRUPTCY, FIRST AMENDMENT, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, DUE PROCESS

This case concerns the application and constitutionality of three Bankruptcy Code provisions applicable to debt relief agencies: 11 U.S.C. §§ 526(a), 528(a)(4), and 528(b)(2)(B). Minnesota law firm Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. claims exemption from the provisions, arguing that an attorney is not a “debt relief agency.” Furthermore, it claims that 11 U.S.C. § 526(a), which prevents a “debt relief agency” from counseling a client to incur additional debt in contemplation of bankruptcy, is an unconstitutionally overbroad restriction of free speech. Finally, Milavetz argues that 11 U.S.C. §§ 528(a)(4) and 528(b)(2)(B), which require a “debt relief agency” to make certain disclosures in their advertisements, violate the First Amendment. The United States argues that the statutes apply to attorneys and that they are reasonable and specific restrictions on speech. This case’s outcome will potentially affect bankruptcy laws, disclosure laws, and the legal advice that a lawyer may provide a client.