Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether general allegations that disclosure of fraud is always inevitable and that disclosure sooner rather than later is always more prudent satisfy the “more harm than good” pleading standard of Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. The Retirement Plans Committee of IBM argues that a rule that disclosure sooner rather than later is always prudent is too broad and will result in liability in cases in which fiduciaries did not disclose information as soon as possible, but nonetheless acted prudently. In contrast, Jander asserts that Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) fiduciaries should not be held to a different standard of prudence than all other ERISA fiduciaries, and that raising the pleading standard would make the standard impossible to meet. The outcome of this case will affect companies’ ability to provide ESOPs to their employees and employees’ access to ESOPs. This case will also have important implications for the stability and protection of employees’ retirement benefits.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide if the Appointments Clause governs the appointment of members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the “Board”). In response to Puerto Rico’s debt crisis, Congress enacted the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act of 2016 (PROMESA), which created the Board that institutes Title III proceedings on behalf of Puerto Rico. In 2017, a number of creditors filed complaints seeking to dismiss the Board’s debt adjustment proceedings, challenging President Obama’s appointment of the board members. On appeal, the First Circuit held that the Board members’ appointments are unconstitutional but sustained the Board’s Title III proceedings under the de facto officer doctrine. The Board and other Petitioners argue that the Board members’ appointments are constitutional because the Appointments Clause does not apply when Congress acts in the U.S. territories pursuant to its Article IV authority. The creditors and other Respondents counter that all constitutional safeguards, including the Appointments Clause, always apply in the U.S. territories. The outcome of this case has implications for Congress’s authority in providing administrative structures to govern the U.S. territories.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) limits the use of the I-9 and “any information contained in or appended to such form” to the enforcement of specific federal immigration and criminal laws. In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether this limitation contained in IRCA prevents states from using information contained on the I-9 form to prosecute individuals where that same identifying information is found on documents other than the I-9. Kansas argues that the language of IRCA does not preempt Kansas from prosecuting respondents, including Ramiro Garcia, for false information provided on his K-2 and W-4 forms, even if that same information was also found on his I-9 form. Kansas asserts that such prohibitions would limit the traditional police power of the state. Garcia argues that the language of IRCA prevents states from prosecuting individuals for identity theft in work authorization based on false information contained on both the I-9 and other forms. Garcia asserts that such state prosecutions would interfere with the federal enforcement scheme and strong federal interest in employment verification. The Court’s decision in this case will determine whether state or federal law applies to the prosecution of undocumented individuals in similar cases and will affect the employment of unauthorized workers from the perspective of both employers and employees.

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 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred when it granted respondent Lee Boyd Malvo’s habeas corpus petition to reconsider his life-imprisonment-without-parole sentence, yet declined to decide whether Malvo’s sentence was mandatory or discretionary. Petitioner warden Randall Mathena argues that Malvo’s sentence must stand because the Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama expressly limited availability of habeas relief to juveniles sentenced to life imprisonment without parole under mandatory sentencing schemes, and because the precedent upon which the Supreme Court based that opinion does not support expanding the rule to discretionary sentencing schemes. Malvo counters that he should be resentenced because the Supreme Court precedent and the Court’s decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana—extending Miller retroactively to cases on collateral review—requires sentencing judges to take juveniles’ youth into account during sentencing, even if the sentence occurred before Miller. Malvo further contends that even if he were sentenced pursuant to a “discretionary” sentencing scheme, his life sentence violates Miller because the sentencing judge failed to consider, on account of his juvenile status, his lessened moral blameworthiness and greater capacity for change, therefore entitling him to resentencing. The outcome of this case will affect how the criminal justice system treats juveniles and victims, whether the system will preserve the distinction between discretionary and mandatory sentencing schemes.

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 one-year statute of limitations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) begins once a violation occurs or once the violation is discovered. Petitioner Kevin Rotkiske, whose FDCPA lawsuit was barred by the statute of limitations, argues that the Court should apply the discovery rule and determine that the limitations period begins when the violation is discovered. He argues that the FDCPA should be interpreted in light of common law and precedent which hold that the discovery rule is applicable to suspend statutes of limitations. Respondent Paul Klemm counters that the Court need only read the FDCPA’s plain language to determine that Congress intended the statute-of-limitations period to begin at the time the violation occurred. He too points to precedent that supports his argument that Congress knows how to implement the discovery rule but—based on the FDCPA’s explicit language—chose not to do so. This case has implications for the purpose and history of the FDCPA and its statute of limitations and could affect blameless victims and marginalized communities.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to balance states’ rights to write their own criminal code with individual rights under the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment. The statute at issue, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3220, abolished the traditional right-and-wrong test for the insanity defense in favor of a mens rea approach to insanity. Kahler argues that history and tradition demonstrate that the right-and-wrong test for insanity is a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause. He also contends that disallowing this test essentially abolishes the insanity defense, which is cruel and unusual because it punishes individuals who lack moral culpability for their crimes. Kansas counters that the right-and-wrong test for insanity is not a fundamental right because it is not deeply entrenched in tradition, and that disallowing the defense would not have been deemed cruel and unusual when the Eighth Amendment was adopted. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for states’ authority over their own criminal code, just punishment, and protecting individuals who lack moral culpability.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case consolidates two lawsuits, each containing a claim by an employee alleging that he was terminated by his employer because of his sexual orientation. These employees argue that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which proscribes discrimination “because of . . . sex,” inherently prohibits sexual orientation discrimination because one’s sexual orientation necessarily depends on one’s sex. To further support this argument, the employees contend that Title VII’s plain language, statutory and judicial history, and other provisions all support interpreting the statute to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The employers counter that the plain meaning of “because of . . . sex” at the time of Title VII’s enactment, and courts’ reliance on this plain meaning in their past decisions, indicate that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination. The case’s outcome will have heavy implications for LGBT workers and business’ bottom lines.

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 term “expenses” in 35 U.S.C. § 145 should be interpreted to include attorneys’ fees. To appeal a denied patent application under § 145, the patent applicant must be willing to pay the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) “expenses” related to the litigation. The PTO contends that its attorneys’ fees incurred from litigating § 145 appeals should count as reimbursable “expenses.” NantKwest counters that the American Rule, a presumption that each party in litigation will pay its own attorneys’ fees unless there is explicit and specific statutory language allowing fee-shifting, is not defeated by the vague § 145 language regarding “expenses,” and that accordingly the PTO must pay its own attorneys’ fees in § 145 actions. The outcome of this case has important implications for the future of the American Rule, the interpretation of the term “expenses” in other statutes, and the cost of making a § 145 appeal from a rejected patent application.

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 the prohibition of sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 also extends to discrimination based on gender identity. Harris Funeral Homes (“Harris Homes”) terminated Aimee Stephens’s employment shortly after Stephens informed Harris Homes that she was transgender. Harris Homes and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) take the position that Stephens’s termination was not discriminatory because her termination was premised upon her refusal to follow Harris Homes’s sex-specific and strictly applied dress code. Stephens counters that her dismissal was impermissible under Title VII because the decision to fire her was based on her sex and general principles of “sex stereotyping.” The Supreme Court’s decision will have implications for the wellbeing of transgender employees and for the religious interests of employers.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its holding in Apodaca v. Oregon, where the Court held that states could permit non-unanimous jury verdicts to convict criminal defendants. In July 2016, Evangelisto Ramos was found guilty of second-degree murder by a ten to two jury verdict. Ramos contends that a non-unanimous jury conviction violates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair jury trial, and therefore, the Court should overrule Apodaca. Louisiana counters that, under Apodaca, states are not constitutionally required to mandate unanimous jury verdicts because the Sixth Amendment imposes that requirement only on the federal government. The outcome of this case has important implications for criminal procedure and the participation of minority citizens in jury deliberation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources