damages

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether damages claims filed by private individuals against federal officers merit a judicial tort remedy, absent any other legal remedies. The parents of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca—who was fatally shot on Mexican soil by a U.S. officer on U.S. soil—sued the U.S. officer, other unknown federal employees, and the United States. They argue that under Bivens, their damages claims should proceed despite the lack of statutory provisions because the essence of their claims is the same as Bivens and because no other legal remedy is available. Jesus Mesa, Jr., the Border Patrol agent who shot and killed Sergio, contends that the parents’ claims should be dismissed because the claims fall outside of Bivens given the “new context” they present and the “special factors” that warrant the Court’s caution in recognizing a Bivens action in this case. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for national security, separation of powers, and accountability of agents employing deadly force in foreign territories.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) by a government official allows for an individual to seek monetary damages against that official in their individual capacity. Landor contends that RLUIPA should be interpreted identically to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), which allows for individual-capacity monetary damages against a government official. Landor also argues that the Spending Clause of the United States Constitution permits RLUIPA to allow for these damages. The Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety argues that RLUIPA is distinct from RFRA precisely because the Spending Clause of the Constitution precludes individual liability of state officials, so RFRA and RLUIPA should not be interpreted identically. This case directly impacts freedom of religion rights in prisons, specifically for religious minorities, and the deterrence of future violations of those rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Doyle Paroline was convicted of possessing 150 to 300 images of minors being sexually abused, including two images of Respondent “Amy” being abused by her uncle at the age of eight or nine years old. The Supreme Court will settle a circuit split over the required causal relationship between a defendant’s possession and a victim’s harm in order for the victim to recover full restitution under 18 U.S.C § 2259. Paroline argues that a victim’s damages must be proximately caused by the defendant’s conduct because any other result would turn child exploitation restitution proceedings into a procedural nightmare. Amy argues that § 2259 does not require proximate causation for a victim to be entitled to full damages; otherwise, the victims of child abuse would bear the burden of collecting tiny shares of restitution from several defendants and might never receive full recovery. The Court’s ruling will impact the rights of exploited children and the procedural rights afforded to those charged with possessing child pornography.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

On June 17, 2011, a federal district court issued a decision on a dispute between Ray Haluch Gravel Company and the Central Pension Fund (“CPF”). Although this order addressed the central issue of whether or not Haluch owed certain contributions to CPF, it did not address attorney’s fees and costs. The district court issued a second order on June 25, 2011 on attorney’s fees and costs. CPF filed an appeal on both orders, but the thirty day statute of limitations for notice of appeal had expired on the first order. The First Circuit accepted the appeal, stating that the first order was not a “final judgment” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the contractual attorney’s fees decided in the second order were an issue on the merits, rendering the second order the final judgment. Haluch argues that under Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Company, attorney’s fees should always be considered collateral to the merits, and a separate judgment on the merits should be considered final. CPF argues that Budinich applies only to statutory fees, which are considered costs, whereas contractual fees are considered damages and therefore part of the merits, rendering any judgment that does not resolve an issue concerning the merits—i.e., damages in the form of contractual fees—a non-final judgment. The Court’s decision will clarify what constitutes a “final judgment” and guide litigants seeking to make timely appeals.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), individual federal employees can be sued for money damages. Petitioners Tanzin and other government agents argue that money damages against individuals in their personal capacities are unavailable unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise, which Congress has not done in RFRA. Tanzin also argues that RFRA authorizes relief “against a government,” which does not include individual officials. Tanzin further claims that money damages fall beyond RFRA’s authorization of “appropriate” relief. Respondents Tanvir and others counter that Congress need not expressly authorize money damages, but that rather, money damages are available unless Congress clearly says otherwise. Additionally, Tanvir claims that RFRA authorizes suits against officials, even separate from their official capacity, and that money damages are “appropriate” and even necessary to enforce RFRA. The outcome of this case could affect the separation of powers between the judicial and the executive branches, the financial and operational burdens on the federal government, and the interests of third parties, including religious minority groups.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a copyright plaintiff can recover damages for infringements over three years before the filing of a lawsuit if the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the infringement within three years of the filing of the lawsuit. Petitioners Warner Chappell Music, Inc., and Artist Publishing Group, LLC, contend that the discovery rule, which provides that a claim accrues when plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the infringement, is inapplicable because the statute of limitations commences at the time of infringement, marking the completion of the cause of action. Additionally, Petitioners assert that applying the discovery rule would contravene Congress’s intent, as the language pertaining to the discovery rule is intentionally absent from the copyright provision. On the other hand, Respondents Nealy and Music Specialist, Inc. argue that Petitioners’ challenge on the discovery rule exceeds the scope of the issue presented to the Supreme Court, as the lower courts already presumed the application of the discovery rule in this case. Respondents also posit that introducing a separate damages bar—a cap on damages that can be awarded to a plaintiff—in federal copyright cases would undermine Congress’s purpose, as copyright law does not impose such a bar. This case will affect the scope of infringement cases initiated by copyright holders and alter the burden of proof for each party in future copyright cases.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources