Issues

The Turkish government owns the majority of a bank called Turkiye Halk Bankasi (“Halkbank”), which a grand jury indicted for multiple counts of fraud in 2019. Halkbank, however, argues that it should be immune from any criminal prosecution by the United States because of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). The FSIA explicitly provides immunity from civil actions for foreign governments and their instrumentalities, but the Supreme Court has never stated whether it also applies to criminal prosecutions. If foreign governments are not granted immunity from criminal prosecution under the FSIA, then, as the United States argues, 18 U.S.C. § 3231 explicitly authorizes district courts to hear the case. The Supreme Court’s decision could affect international relations between countries if they fear criminal prosecution by the United States. It could also impact the United States’ ability to protect its national security from foreign government-owned entities that fund terrorists.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

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

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether settlement with a school satisfies the exhaustion requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) so that a student might bring a claim for monetary damages in a district court. Miguel Luna Perez asserts that IDEA’s exhaustion is satisfied by a settlement with a school, not only by a decision on the merits. Perez further argues that requiring individuals to exhaust their claims in lieu of settlement would be futile. Further, Perez asserts that allowing non-IDEA claims to proceed without IDEA exhaustion would not cause individuals to bypass the administrative IDEA process. Sturgis Public Schools and Sturgis Board of Education (“Sturgis”) counter that settlement is insufficient for exhaustion requirements especially when the individual seeks monetary damages. Sturgis further contends that allowing non-IDEA claims to proceed without IDEA exhaustion might result in parents seeking monetary damages in the courts to the detriment of their child’s free appropriate public education. The outcome of this case has important implications on the substantive rights of children with disabilities in terms of the dispute resolution proceedings between the schools and parents. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court in this case will determine whether the Federal Labor Relations Authority (“FLRA”) has jurisdiction to regulate state militia labor practices. The Ohio Adjutant General, Ohio Adjutant General’s Department, and the Ohio National Guard contend that the Ohio National Guard is under state control and that Congress has not expressly included state militias in the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, and thus the state militias are not subject to the FLRA’s jurisdiction. In contrast, the FLRA maintains that the Guard is subject to the FLRA’s jurisdiction because the statute memorialized various federal regulations providing collective bargaining rights to dual status technicians, and the FLRA’s jurisdiction is necessary to such rights. This case has significant implications for federal military power, labor relations for state militias, and the balance of power between state and federal governments.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether communications involving both legal and non-legal advice (i.e., dual-purpose communications) are evaluated under the primary purpose test or the significant purpose test when determining whether communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The petitioner, a law firm, argues that the significant purpose test should be adopted because it is necessary to avoid deterring the communications the privilege exists to protect. The United States argues for the primary purpose test, contending that the significant purpose test would improperly and unnecessarily expand the privilege. This case has significant implications for protecting client honesty with their lawyers while also not excessively shielding the production of otherwise discoverable materials.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether an employer can bring a tort claim in state court against a union or its members for intentionally destroying the employer’s property during a strike. The Court will decide if the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which allows employers and unions to tactically use “economic weapons” such as strikes to gain leverage during collective bargaining, preempts such tort claims. The parties agree that tort claims involving conduct which is “arguably protected” under the NLRA are preempted. Glacier Northwest contends that intentional destruction of private property is not “arguably protected” because it is unlawful. Glacier Northwest additionally argues that, even if intentional destruction of private property is “arguably protected,” a “local interest” exception to preemption applies. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 174 counters that intentional destruction of private property is “arguably protected” and that the “local interest” exemption does not apply. The Supreme Court’s decision could significantly impact labor law by opening the door to more frequent employer lawsuits and recalibrating the legal protections for activities that unions engage in to secure bargaining leverage.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”), which created the petitioner, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (“the Board”), abrogates the Board’s sovereign immunity by granting general jurisdiction to federal courts over claims against the Board. The Board argues that PROMESA does not abrogate its sovereign immunity, since the statutory language of PROMESA does not explicitly revoke its sovereign immunity. In contrast, the Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. (“CPI”) contends that PROMESA abrogates the Board’s sovereign immunity because the statutory language, read in conjunction with prior case law regarding the abrogation doctrine as well as the legislative history of PROMESA, implicitly revokes the Board’s sovereign immunity. The outcome of this case will profoundly impact the Board’s operations and public oversight of the Board’s financial decisions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the government may dismiss a qui tam action over the objections of the relator when the government chooses not to proceed with the action at the outset. Jesse Polansky argues that the text, structure, history, and purpose of the False Claims Act indicate that when the government chooses not to pursue an action at the outset of a case, the relator has the exclusive right to decide whether to proceed with an action or request its dismissal. Polansky maintains that the government cannot retain its right to dismiss after it declines to proceed at the outset. Executive Health Resources, Inc. counters that the False Claims Act allows the government to dismiss a qui tam action at any time because the Constitution vests executive power in the President. Executive Health Resources contends that delegating executive power to relators, as Polansky suggests, would be unconstitutional. The case has significant policy implications because litigating qui tam actions is costly for all parties involved, and a ruling for unrestricted governmental dismissal authority could chill relators from bringing future qui tam actions, whereas a ruling for limited government dismissal authority could burden the government with meritless qui tam actions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the judicial branch has the authority to overrule a state legislature’s redistricting map. In 2021, the North Carolina Legislature created a redistricting map that the North Carolina Supreme Court subsequently struck down for violations of the North Carolina State Constitution. The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution declares that state legislatures shall determine state election laws, but it does not explicitly state whether state courts can review those laws for state constitutional violations. Moore argues that the Elections Clause grants state legislatures the sole authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections and, consequently, other branches are prohibited from interfering with this authority. Harper counters that Moore’s reading of the Election Clause is erroneous, as it would allow state legislature to violate their own state constitutions. The United States Supreme Court’s decision could affect voter perception of election integrity, as well as how much power state legislatures have in determining election law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a provision of federal bankruptcy law, 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), restricts the power of federal courts to review the order approving the sale of Sears’ assets. In the wake of Sears’ bankruptcy filing, Sears’ former CEO created a company, Transform HoldCo. Transform HoldCo then acquired Sears’ lease for space located in the Mall of America and subsequently assigned that lease to one of its subsidiaries with approval from the Bankruptcy Court. MOAC Mall Holdings, which owns Mall of America, challenged the assignment in federal court. Transform HoldCo contends that federal courts do not have the ability to review the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, and that regardless, the relief that MOAC seeks is unavailable because under no circumstances can MOAC retake control of the lease. MOAC contends both that the assignment decision is indeed reviewable by federal courts and also that it is entitled to relief under the relevant statutes. This case has important implications for judicial review and for the protections that mall owners and good-faith transferees have during bankruptcy proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources