due process

Issues

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.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

In 1981 the City of San Francisco enacted the Hotel Conversion Ordinance ("the HCO") in order to stem the depletion of housing for the poor, elderly, and disabled by controlling the conversion of hotel units from residential to tourist use. The HCO, as revised in 1990, places harsh requirements on the owners of hotels who want to convert their property from residential to tourist use. These requirements include the construction of a new residential unit for each unit that is converted, or a payment to the city of 80 percent of the cost of constructing such a replacement. The owners of the San Remo Hotel sought to convert their hotel from residential to tourist use, and challenged the legality of the HCO under the takings clause of the California constitution. The California Supreme Court upheld the HCO, and the owners of the hotel then challenged it in federal court under the takings clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, ruled that they were precluded from raising this issue by virtue of the state court's prior ruling.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a petitioner must file a motion to reconsider with the Board of Immigrant Appeals to satisfy the exhaustion requirement (8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1)) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and whether this requirement is jurisdictional or a waivable claims-processing rule. Leon Santos-Zacaria argues that the exhaustion requirement is a claims-processing rule because the statute does not mention jurisdiction, and Congress must clearly state that a procedural requirement is jurisdictional for it to be so. Santos-Zacaria further argues that the exhaustion requirement pertains only to remedies available to the alien as of right, which Santos-Zacaria asserts does not include reconsideration. U.S. Attorney General, Merrick Garland, counters that the exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional because the statute is written with language like that which is used to define the scope of appellate jurisdiction. Garland further asserts that the exhaustion requirement encompasses issue exhaustion, which includes reconsideration, because the applicant must give the agency a chance to correct its own mistakes before resorting to appellate review. The outcome of this case will determine the accessibility of judicial review of asylum application decisions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act’s provisions regarding deportation, is unconstitutionally vague. In doing so, the Court will also decide whether it should assess the constitutionality of this provision under the vagueness standard applicable to criminal statutes or under a less strict standard. Attorney General Jeff Sessions argues that the Court should apply a less strict vagueness standard to § 16(b) in this case because of its civil rather than criminal context. Sessions also argues that § 16(b) is not unconstitutionally vague under the proposed lower standard because its language is plainly intelligible. James Garcia Dimaya contends, however, that the Court should apply the vagueness standard applicable to criminal statutes in this case because the Court applied this standard to a deportation statute in Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 223 (1951). Dimaya also asserts that § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague because it shares the same features that made a provision unconstitutionally vague in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). The outcome of this case will have consequences for the validity of § 16(b) as it is incorporated into other criminal and civil laws and for the government’s ability to remove some aliens from the United States.   

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to decide the constitutionality of a statute requiring a defendant to initiate a civil case to obtain reimbursement of costs, fees, and restitution after the reversal of conviction of a crime. This case arises out of Shannon Nelson’s conviction for sexual assault, which was overturned after she served prison time and paid various fees. The Colorado Supreme Court found that due process did not require a refund because a defendant could receive compensation by filing a civil suit under the Exoneration Act. Nelson argues that Colorado’s requirement improperly places the burden of proof on the defendant to prove his or her innocence in order to recover fees paid for a conviction that was later overturned. Colorado asserts that Nelson did not necessarily have an automatic right to the refund of her criminal penalties and that, even if she did, Colorado’s requirement satisfies due process. This case poses questions about a state’s ability to affect the presumption of innocence through statutes that influence the scope of due process.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

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.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Petitioner Calvin Smith was involved in a criminal drug distribution organization and imprisoned for a related murder in 1994. In 2000, a grand jury brought indictments against him. Smith defended his two conspiracy charges on the grounds that the statute of limitations barred his conviction because he had withdrawn from the conspiracy more than five years ago. The trial court directed the jury that the burden of proof was on Smith as defendant to prove withdrawal by a preponderance of the evidence. Smith claims his participation in the conspiracy during the statutory period is a necessary element of his crime that the government must prove. Additionally, since withdrawal and participation are mutually exclusive, his withdrawal would negate an essential element of the government's case against him. The United States argues that withdrawal is an affirmative defense, and the burden of proof lies with the defendant. This case will define the boundaries of Due Process Protection in conspiracy cases and similar cases involving amorphous and on-going criminal activity.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the states from imposing excessive fines, fees, and forfeitures. Tyson Timbs contends that because the Excessive Fines Clause is deeply rooted in the United States’ history and tradition, it is a fundamental right that the states cannot violate as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State of Indiana argues that the relevant issue is not whether the Excessive Fines Clause, in general, is incorporated against the states, but rather whether there is a proportionality requirement for state forfeitures concerning property, or in rem forfeitures. Indiana maintains that protection from disproportionate in rem forfeitures is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition. The outcome of this case will affect how states and localities generate revenue; the degree of financial burden that states and localities may impose on individuals; and state governments’ ability to deter criminal activity and reintegrate people within the criminal justice system into society.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case will address whether certain undisclosed evidence falls under the standard for prosecutorial disclosures as described by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The defendants, Russell Overton and Charles Turner, were convicted of a murder that occurred in 1984 and contend that several pieces of evidence were improperly withheld by the prosecution, resulting in a violation of their Fifth Amendment right to due process. The United States asserts that the evidence in question does not fall within the scope of the Brady standard, and therefore no post-conviction relief is required. The outcome of this case will further articulate the standards of materiality, favorability, and suppression under Brady and elucidate what information a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to know before trial.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources