Issues

The Supreme Court will rule on the separate-sovereigns doctrine, an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause that permits both state and federal governments to prosecute an individual for offenses arising from the same conduct. Terance Gamble was prosecuted under both state and federal law for possession of a firearm after being convicted of a violent crime. Gamble argues that an exception for successive prosecutions by separate sovereigns is incompatible with the text of the Clause and the Framers’ intent, and that the Court should overrule contrary precedent. The Government counters that the text of the Constitution, historical context, and a long line of affirmative precedent support preservation of the exception. The Court’s decision in this case will have implications for Double Jeopardy protections, state and federal criminal law, and competition in criminal prosecutions between sovereigns.

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 vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of job availability when a Social Security disability claimant requests but is not suppled with the data underlying that expert’s testimony. Petitioner Michael J. Biestek contends that the substantial evidence standard requires vocational experts to produce the underlying data upon an applicant’s request; otherwise, the expert’s testimony is unverifiable and allows the expert’s word to be unlawfully substituted for actual substantial evidence. Respondent Nancy A. Berryhill, the acting Commissioner of Social Security, counters that the substantial evidence standard focuses on the contents of the hearing record, not the procedure used to make that record. Additionally, Berryhill responds that plaintiffs already effectively undercut a vocational expert’s testimony on cross-examination and thus do not need to review the expert’s data. The outcome of this case will have large implications on litigation strategy in Social Security disability claims, for both claimants and the government.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Helsinn Healthcare S.A. (“Helsinn”) sought and received four patents, beginning in 2003, for a drug developed pursuant to a licensing agreement with another pharmaceutical company. Though the drug’s formula remained confidential, the news of the deal was made public. In 2011, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) applied to the Food and Drug Administration for approval of a generic version of the drug, and—within that application—certified that Helsinn’s patents were invalid. Helsinn sued for patent infringement, arguing that the on-sale bar provision of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) does not apply to licensing agreements like the one Helsinn entered, because the confidentiality agreement in place meant that the invention was not publicly available. Helsinn then argues that adopting a different interpretation would conflict with the AIA’s two goals of aligning U.S. patent law with international standards and incentivizing prompt filing under the first-to-file standard. On the other hand, Teva asserts that the AIA’s on-sale bar provision does apply based on the plain meaning of “on sale” as illustrated by two-hundred years’ worth of statutory interpretation. Teva additionally counters that Helsinn’s interpretation would invite the secret-commercialization tactics that extend a company’s monopoly over inventions and that the AIA sought to eliminate. The Supreme Court’s decision has vast implications for patent-holders in the United States, may chill biotechnological innovation, and may adversely affect the public by extending monopolies over certain drugs and thus undermine the development of competition in the biotechnical market.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to examine § 11-21-12(c)(6) of the West Virginia Code (“§ 12(c)(6)”), which grants an income tax exemption for the retirement compensation of state retirees, but not of federal retirees. Petitioner James Dawson contends that § 12(c)(6) violates federal law 4 U.S.C. § 111 (“§ 111”), which prohibits discriminatory tax treatment against federal employees by state governments. Under the Supreme Court’s Davis test, according to Dawson, a state law violates § 111 by imposing higher taxes on income from the federal government than income from the state government when there are no significant differences between the two to justify the heavier tax burden placed on federal income. Respondent Dale Steager, the State Tax Commissioner of West Virginia, counters that § 12(c)(6) does not discriminate against federal retirees because § 12(c)(6) applies in very narrow cases. Steager further argues that West Virginia treats federal employees the same as state employees, and Dawson is not similarly situated to state retirees that are eligible for this tax exemption. The outcome of this case will affect state-level taxing policy and tax exemptions afforded only to state employees.

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 scope of Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, as well as the extent of liability for securities professionals who play a supportive role in fraudulent-scheme claims. Francis Lorenzo contends that the Supreme Court should apply a narrow definition of primary liability to Rule 10b-5 securities actions. Lorenzo argues that he is not culpable for securities fraud under Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) because, in forwarding emails that were written by his superior, he did nothing more than provide “substantial assistance” to those who defrauded investors with misleading financial statements. The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) counters that Lorenzo played a primary role in advancing the fraud because he signed the emails as the director of investment banking, and he told the potential investors to contact him for information about the financial health of his brokerage firm’s clients. This case will determine the ease with which the SEC can bring claims against securities professionals accused of fraud.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In response to the largest beef recall in United States history, California amended its Penal Code to ban the slaughtering of nonambulatory animals and require that slaughterhouses euthanize any such animals on their premises. The National Meat Association filed suit arguing that the Federal Meat Inspection Act expressly preempts California’s ban on the slaughter of nonambulatory animals, and that the Federal Meat Inspection Act’s historical context demonstrates Congress’s intent to exercise exclusive authority over the meatpacking industry. Attorney General of California Kamala Harris and animal protection organizations (including the Humane Society of the United States) propose a narrow understanding of slaughterhouse “operations” and argue that the California ban does not undermine the Federal Meat Inspection Act’s purpose. The outcome of this case will affect the slaughterhouses’ ability to examine animals for disease before euthanizing them and states’ ability to regulate areas where general federal law already exists.

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 Eighth Amendment prohibits the states from imposing excessive fines, fees, and forfeitures. Tyson Timbs contends that because the Excessive Fines Clause is deeply rooted in the United States’ history and tradition, it is a fundamental right that the states cannot violate as a result of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State of Indiana argues that the relevant issue is not whether the Excessive Fines Clause, in general, is incorporated against the states, but rather whether there is a proportionality requirement for state forfeitures concerning property, or in rem forfeitures. Indiana maintains that protection from disproportionate in rem forfeitures is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition. The outcome of this case will affect how states and localities generate revenue; the degree of financial burden that states and localities may impose on individuals; and state governments’ ability to deter criminal activity and reintegrate people within the criminal justice system into society.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether customers of the iPhone’s App Store are considered direct purchasers of Apple. The question of direct purchaser status under the Illinois Brick doctrine is necessary to grant standing and proceed with an antitrust class action accusing Apple of monopolizing the market for iPhone apps. The Ninth Circuit held, and the class action representatives now argue, that customers of the App Store are direct purchasers because Apple functions as a distributor for app developers. Apple disagrees, arguing that it sells its distribution services to app developers, who are its direct purchasers; moreover, Apple asserts that it does not possess key price-setting power. The Court’s decision in this case will have implications for who may bring antitrust actions, potentially opening the door to duplicative damages and excessive private litigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

After was Convicted of a murder that occurred on disputed tribal land, Patrick Murphy asks the Supreme Court to determine if the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation tribal land are still in effect today. If the boundaries are in effect, Murphy asserts that his murder conviction must be overturned because it was committed within the Creek Nation boundaries, meaning the Oklahoma state court that convicted him did not have jurisdiction to hear the case.  Oklahoma State Penitentiary Interim Warden Mark Carpenter counters that the Creek Nation reservation has been disestablished and is no longer in effect, arguing that Oklahoma state courts indeed had jurisdiction to prosecute Murphy for the murder. Carpenter contends that giving effect to the territorial boundaries would create taxation and regulatory problems, while Murphy counters that acknowledging the tribal land boundaries would lead to mutually profitable tax agreements and other community benefits such as increased job opportunities and more effective law enforcement.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether courts may apply equitable exceptions to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s 14-day deadline to petition for permission to appeal. After the district court decertified the consumer class suing Nutraceutical and denied Lambert’s motion for reconsideration, Lambert filed a petition for permission to appeal under Rule 23(f) in June 2015. The Ninth Circuit held that the petition was proper because equitable exceptions applied. Nutraceutical now argues that the petition was not timely because it was filed well beyond the 14-day deadline and that equitable exceptions do not apply to Rule 23(f). Lambert contends that the petition was filed in a timely manner and that equitable exceptions make the petition proper even if the filing was not timely. This case will have implications for protecting unsophisticated litigants in class action suits as well as for judicial economy and resources.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources