Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to Petitioner T.M.’s case, wherein T.M. filed a claim in a federal court challenging a state court judgment before the state court judgment’s appeal window closed. T.M. argues that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply to her case because her state court judgment was not final or issued by the state’s highest court. If Rooker-Feldman applies to her case, T.M. asks the court to overturn the doctrine. Respondents, including the University of Maryland Medical System Corporation (“UMMS”), counter that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine should bar T.M.’s case because it meets all elements required by the doctrine. UMMS posits that any arguments that ask the Court to overturn Rooker-Feldman are beyond the scope of the question the Court has before it. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for litigation incentives and the relationship between federal and state courts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a showing of financial harm is necessary for the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) to pursue equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7). Ongkaruck Sripetch argues that congressional intent and prior precedent support a showing of pecuniary harm requirement for disgorgement. The SEC counters that Sripetch misapprehends both congressional intent and Liu v. SEC as mandating a showing of pecuniary harm. Instead, the SEC argues that congressional intent and Liu both limit disgorgement to its usage as a form of compensation for unjust enrichment, which does not require a demonstration of financial harm. This case will have significant ramifications for the effectiveness of disgorgement both as an enforcement tool and as a means of compensating victims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the statutory provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC’s”) assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures violate regulated entities’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial or impinge on federal courts’ Article III authority. AT&T, which was ordered to pay a forfeiture by the FCC for violating consumer privacy rights, claims that the Seventh Amendment and Article III entitle it to a jury trial in federal court before such an order is made. The FCC argues that the current procedures—which provide AT&T with the right to challenge enforcement of a forfeiture in federal district court—preserve AT&T’s right to a jury trial in federal court. This case carries implications for the FCC’s ability to assess monetary penalties for violations of federal telecommunications law. It also has implications for other agencies that follow procedures essentially identical to those the FCC followed here.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks whether the government must show that it had clear and convincing evidence that a Lawful Permanent Resident committed a crime of moral turpitude at the time that the Lawful Permanent Resident was temporarily paroled by the Department of Homeland Security. Petitioner former Attorney General Pamela Bondi argues that the government only needs to present clear and convincing evidence that the Lawful Permanent Resident committed a crime at removal proceedings and not before. Bondi also argues that a court cannot review the discretionary decisions of the Department of Homeland Security. In response, Respondent Muk Choi Lau argues that Lawful Permanent Residents cannot be paroled unless the government can prove the noncitizen committed a crime at the time of their reentry. Lau also asserts that the decision to parole him was a mixed question of law and fact and therefore can be reviewed. The outcome of this case has implications for screening procedures at the border, the rights of noncitizens, and public safety.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources