STARE DECISIS

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Mississippi’s ban on all elective abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy is constitutional. Petitioner Thomas Dobbs argues that the Court should overturn the precedent establishing a constitutional right to pre-viability abortions—Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey—or alternatively, reject viability as a measuring tool. In response, Respondent Women’s Health Center contends that the Court should uphold the constitutional right to abortion because there is no compelling reason to overrule the previous abortion precedents finding such a right. The Court’s decision on this case has serious implications for the rights of women, the role of religion in law-making, and stare decisis.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will determine whether or not to overrule Nevada v. Hall, which held that states do not enjoy immunity from suit in the courts of their sister states. Petitioner Franchise Tax Board of California (“Franchise Tax Board” or “the Board”) contends that historical evidence and Hall’s inconsistency with the Court’s other precedent regarding sovereign immunity require that the Court overrule Hall. Franchise Tax Board further argues that preserving Hall’s holding, thereby allowing states to be sued in the courts of other states, infringes on state sovereignty and unfairly burdens state tax collection practices. Respondent Gilbert Hyatt (“Hyatt”) counters that the Constitution does not grant states sovereign immunity in each other’s courts and that Hall is consistent with the Court’s jurisprudence on sovereign immunity. Hyatt also asserts that states have a vested interest in protecting their citizens and providing them with a forum to vindicate their rights—if Hall were overruled, individuals similarly situated to Hyatt would have no means of litigating this type of dispute. From a policy perspective, this case is important because it will determine whether states can be sued in the courts of other states without their consent.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Under California law, a union may become the exclusive bargaining representative for all public school employees in a particular school district if it can show that a majority of the employees agree to be represented by that union. See Friedrichs v. Cal. Teachers Ass’n, No. SACV 13–676–JLS, 2013 WL 9825479, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2013). Such a union may establish an “agency shop” arrangement with the school district, under which employees, not members of the union, are required to pay an agency fee, and may only opt out from funding union activities not related to collective bargaining. See Friedrichs, 2013 WL 9825479, at *1. Friedrichs asserts that because of the political nature of collective bargaining, compelled agency fees are a violation of the First Amendment, and the opt-out system takes advantage of dissenters unaware of the affirmative objection requirement. See Brief for Petitioner, Rebecca Friedrichs, et al. 22, 30, 55–56, 61. In opposition, the Union argues that there is no justifiable reason to modify the opt-out arrangements, and that “agency shop” arrangements do not infringe employees’ First Amendment rights but are necessary to prevent a free riding problem. See Brief for Respondent, California Teachers Association, et al. at 15–17, 32, 55. The Court’s  decision in this case  will impact unions’ abilities to raise funds and the First Amendment rights of non-members of the union. See Brief of Amicus Curiae United States, in Support of Respondents at 19–20, 26–29.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Louisiana’s law, requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals, comports with the Court’s precedent. The parties agree that the Louisiana law at issue in this case is substantially similar to the Texas law that the Supreme Court struck down in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. June Medical Services argues that precedent from Whole Woman’s Health and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey control and that Louisiana’s Act is unconstitutional because it unduly burdens women seeking abortions. Doctor Rebekah Gee on behalf of Louisiana argues that June Medical Services lacks standing to bring forth a claim on behalf of their patients and further asserts that Whole Woman’s Health does not control the outcome of this case because the Louisiana Act does not unduly burden women seeking abortions. The outcome of this case has important implications on access to abortion services for women of color and could impact lower courts’ fact-finding authority.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether Auer deference—a rule that requires a court to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation—ought to be overruled. James Kisor contends that the Auer doctrine is not part of the lawmaking authority that Congress has delegated to agencies, but it instead circumvents the limits that Congress has placed on their authority, is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, and lacks any policy justification. Robert Willkie, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, counters that, while there should be significant limitations on Auer deference, altogether discarding the doctrine would have heavy practical consequences for both agencies and regulated parties. The outcome of this case will affect the ability of regulated individuals and entities to comply with agency regulations and to challenge agency interpretations of their own regulations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to rule on the validity of the assignor estoppel doctrine. Under this doctrine, an assignor of a patent may not, in a suit against the assignee, claim that the patent is invalid. Petitioner Minerva Surgical Inc. argues assignor estoppel is not supported in the Patent Act and Court precedent favors the doctrine’s abolition. Respondent Hologic Inc. counters that assignor estoppel is implicit in the Patent Act and that stare decisis dictates that the Court uphold assignor estoppel. The outcome of this case has significant policy implications regarding the proper balance of the public interest in challenging potentially invalid patents and the interest in promoting equity and fair dealing in the assignor–assignee relationship.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The case asks the Court to determine if 8 U.S.C § 1252(b)(1), which creates a 30-day deadline to appeal a final order for removal, is a jurisdictional barrier that must be met for an appeal to be heard, or if it is simply one of many factors the Court can consider. Additionally, the case asks the Court to determine if § 1252(b)(1) is satisfied if the petitioner appeals the case after a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals within 30 days of its decision. Petitioner argues that § 1252(b)(1) is not a jurisdictional rule and even if it was, § 1252(b)(1) was satisfied. Respondent argues that § 1252(b)(1) is a jurisdictional rule which was not satisfied. The case decision will affect both the noncitizen’s ability to access immigration proceedings and the courts’ administrative burden in handling them. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether to overturn Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which held that the Commerce Clause prohibits states from imposing sales or use taxes on out-of-state sellers. Petitioner South Dakota argues that in modern times, a business may not have a physical presence in a state, yet still satisfy the “substantial nexus” requirement as articulated in Complete Auto Transit v. Brady. South Dakota further argues that increases in electronic commerce, concerns with states’ ability to collect adequate revenues, and overall changes in the national economy favoring online sellers weigh in favor of overturning Quill, despite stare decisis. In contrast, Respondent Wayfair, Inc. argues that changes in market conditions do not justify overturning Quill, especially when the underlying constitutional concerns of restraints on interstate commerce remain. Wayfair further argues that imposing sales taxes on remote sellers will unfairly burden small businesses with appreciable compliance costs, especially as the largest online sellers, such as Amazon, already voluntarily pay state sales taxes. If the Court rules in South Dakota’s favor, online retailers will be subject to state sales and use taxes, and likely raise the prices of the goods they sell. If the Court instead rules in Wayfair’s favor and upholds Quill, online retailers will continue to have an apparent advantage compared to local brick-and-mortar businesses.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources