Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Ramos v. Louisiana, which held that a criminal defendant charged in state court can only be convicted by a unanimous jury, applies retroactively to cases that were finalized before Ramos was decided. Petitioner Thedrick Edwards was convicted under Louisiana’s nonunanimous jury rule and contends that Ramos recognized an ancient guarantee of criminal procedure that should be given retroactive effect under Teague v. Lane. Alternatively, Edwards asserts that Ramos enunciated a new watershed rule that must be applied retroactively because of the importance of juror unanimity to ensure accurate convictions. In response, Respondent Darrel Vannoy, the Warden of the Louisiana State Penitentiary, argues that Ramos overruled Apodaca v. Oregon and announced a new rule that significantly changes criminal proceedings in states that allowed conviction by nonunanimous juries. Additionally, Vannoy claims that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1966 independently bars the retroactive application of Ramos. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for individuals seeking retrial for guilty verdicts decided by nonunanimous juries.

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 an impeachment trial before a legislative body qualifies as a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that an impeachment inquiry is not a judicial proceeding, and therefore, President Trump’s impeachment trial is not subject to the exception to grand-jury secrecy for judicial proceedings and can remain redacted. The House Committee on the Judiciary counters that the Committee plays the same role during its impeachment inquiry as an ordinary court that oversees litigation between parties, and therefore, the impeachment inquiry is a judicial proceeding. As such, the House Committee demands access to unredacted transcripts and all other documents that special counsel Robert Mueller’s grand jury considered. The outcome of this case determines whether House Democrats can gain access to Mueller’s report on President Trump’s alleged interference with Mueller’s investigation as part of their ongoing impeachment inquiry and the extent of the House Committees’ access to information in future impeachment inquiries. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to interpret the Anti-Injunction Act and to determine whether it bars pre-enforcement legal challenges to agency guidelines and regulations that incorporate a tax-penalty enforcement mechanism into the framework. CIC Services argues that the Supreme Court should construe the Administrative Procedure Act’s review provisions broadly enough and the Anti-Injunction Act’s prohibitory provisions narrowly enough to provide material tax advisors relief from the Internal Revenue Service’s new interpretative guidelines concerning reportable transactions. The Internal Revenue Service counters that the Anti-Injunction Act applies to CIC’s challenge so the lawsuit is barred and that none of the available exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act’s provisions apply to CIC’s sought injunction. This case has important implications for corporations whose business involves reporting earnings to the Internal Revenue Service, as well as for federal agencies’ abilities to avoid lawsuits by tying in certain tax-penalty provisions.

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 judgment against the plaintiff on a Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) claim, alleging violations under state tort law, bars the plaintiff from pursuing a constitutional remedy under Bivens. Petitioner Douglas Brownback contends that the district court’s dismissal of Respondent James King’s FTCA claims on the basis of his failure to establish the elements of Section 1346(b) constitutes a final judgment on the merits of all claims pertaining to the same subject matter. Brownback argues that consistent with the purpose of the statute, Section 2676 of the FTCA bars King from pursuing his Bivens action. King counters that the judgment bar should be interpreted to incorporate the doctrine of res judicata, which precludes subsequent claims only if a court with jurisdiction has entered a judgment on the merits. King argues that since no such jurisdiction exists over the claims in this case, his Bivens action should not be barred. The outcome of this case has significant implications for plaintiffs’ access to courts and the avenues for relief plaintiffs may pursue to hold government officials accountable for state tort and constitutional violations.    

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the status of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) after Congress amended the ACA’s individual mandate in 2017. When Congress enacted the ACA in 2010, the individual mandate required individuals to maintain health insurance or pay a penalty. In 2012, the Court upheld the individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s Taxing Power. In 2017, as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Congress lowered the individual mandate’s penalty for failing to maintain health insurance to zero dollars. Texas contends that by setting the penalty for non-compliance to zero dollars, Congress rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional because it no longer is a valid exercise of Congress’s Taxing Power. Texas further argues that the individual mandate is not severable from the rest of the ACA, requiring the Supreme Court to strike down the entirety of the ACA. California disputes this. As a threshold matter, California contends that the opposing parties do not have standing to bring this claim because they have not been injured by the penalty of zero dollars. But even if they have standing, California argues that the individual mandate is constitutional. Finally, if it is not constitutional, California contends that the individual mandate can be severed from the rest of the ACA. This case, and the viability of the ACA, has drastic policy implications for the millions of Americans who rely on the ACA for their health insurance.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

A notice to appear in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) triggers a stop-time rule that prevents noncitizens from accruing uninterrupted time spent in the United States—ten years of which makes a noncitizen eligible to cancel removal. The issue presented to the Supreme Court is whether the information required for a notice to appear must be included in a single document or whether it may be included in multiple documents. Agusto Niz-Chavez argues that the text and purpose of Section 1229(a) indicates that the required information must be included in a single notice and that the Court should not defer to the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“Board”) interpretation of the statute. In contrast, Attorney General William Barr argues that the text and purpose of Section 1229(a) permits the government to issue notices to noncitizens across multiple documents and the Court should grant the Board deference. The outcome of this case has important implications for the procedural due process rights of immigrants subject to removal proceedings and the administrative burden of those proceedings on immigration courts and other government agencies.

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 a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 includes crimes in which an individual used force recklessly. Petitioner Charles Borden asserts that the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit incorrectly held that committing a crime with a mens rea of recklessness constitutes a violent felony because the mental state of recklessness does not include the intention or knowledge that would satisfy the requirement of using force “against the person of another.” Respondent United States counters that a mens rea of recklessness satisfies the element because the focus is on the “use” of the physical force, which does not discern between mental states. The outcome of this case has important implications for criminal procedure, due process rights, and the necessary interpretation of the text of the ACCA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to balance First Amendment rights with the government’s interest in promoting equality. Petitioner Catholic Social Services (“CSS”) contracted with Respondent City of Philadelphia (“the City”) to provide foster care and choose foster parents for the City’s youth; however, CSS objected to the inclusion of a non-discrimination clause in its contract that required it to consider LGBT+ individuals as foster parents. CSS argues that the City’s non-discrimination clause specifically targets it as a Catholic organization, thereby infringing upon its religious beliefs under the Free Exercise Clause and compelling it to endorse LGBT+ relationships in contravention of the Free Speech Clause. The City counters that the non-discrimination clause is a policy that applies to all contractors who undertake governmental work, and that CSS cannot claim to use religious freedom to undermine the City’s strong interest in preventing discrimination. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will implicate laws impacting religious freedom, LGBT+ issues, and equal protection.

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 the deliberative process privilege under Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act protects interagency draft documents. The documents in question are draft biological jeopardy opinions produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act during an environmental consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency regarding a proposed agency regulation. The Sierra Club contends that the requested documents do not fall within the scope of the deliberative process privilege exemption because the jeopardy decision within the draft opinion was final, not tentative, and the documents shaped later agency decisions by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to discontinue, modify, or seek an exemption for its proposed action. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service argue that the requested documents fall within the scope of the deliberative process privilege exemption because the exemption aims to encourage effective governmental decision-making and must protect inter-agency documents and memoranda that have not been adopted as final to further this goal. By granting certiorari in this case, the Supreme Court will determine the extent to which government agencies can invoke the deliberative process privilege and the correlative scope of the public’s right of access to information under the Freedom of Information Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to decide whether a state may impose a sentence of life without parole on a juvenile who is found guilty of murder without first finding that the juvenile is permanently incorrigible. Petitioner Brett Jones contends that the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence on cruel and unusual punishment categorically prohibits a life sentence without parole for a juvenile offender who is not permanently incorrigible and requires courts to make a factual finding on incorrigibility. Respondent Mississippi counters that the Eighth Amendment imposes no such requirement, claiming that the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence only forbids states from imposing mandatory life without parole sentences on juvenile offenders. The outcome of this case has significant policy implications because it raises concerns of federalism, transparency in sentencing procedures, and impact on victims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources