Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether ERISA plan participants have standing to sue for breaches of fiduciary duty where the underlying employee benefit plan is overfunded. Thole and Smith argue that they have standing under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2)–(3) and the common law of trusts because neither conditions standing on a showing of individual financial loss. U.S. Bank counters that Thole and Smith have not suffered an injury sufficient to support standing because their retirement benefits were never actually at risk and they have no interest in a plan’s overfunded surplus. The outcome of this case will determine the circumstances in which certain plan participants may enforce ERISA 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 whether a plaintiff must show that an entity willfully infringed on a trademark in order to be awarded the infringer’s profits for violating the Lanham Act. Romag Fasteners, Inc. argues that the plain text of Section 1117(a) and the structure of the Lanham Act omits a willfulness requirement, and the phrase “subject to the principles of equity” in Section 1117(a) does not justify such a requirement. Fossil, Inc. counters that the textual analysis of Section 1117(a) should incorporate traditional principles of equity that require willfulness for profits awards because the text expressly allows for consideration of equitable principles. The outcome of this case has important implications for the rights of trademark holders and awards of damages.

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 can prevent a defendant from raising a defense if the defendant failed to assert that defense against the same plaintiff in a prior, similar lawsuit. The Second Circuit recognized “defense preclusion” as a valid civil procedure concept to bar Lucky Brands Dungarees from raising a new defense in a trademark infringement lawsuit against Marcel Fashions Group where Lucky Brands Dungarees could have raised this defense in a previous lawsuit over the same alleged infringement. Lucky Brands Dungarees contends that applying defense preclusion against a defendant conflicts with fundamental principles of res judicata and is a novel invention by the Second Circuit that is harmful to defendants whose interests change over time. Marcel Fashions Group counters that defense preclusion is a logical feature of res judicata and argues that this doctrine clearly applies to defendants who, after losing a lawsuit, do not change their conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact when and how defendants strategically raise defenses in civil litigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2010, two public officials, Bridget Anne Kelly and William E. Baroni, Jr., reallocated two toll lanes on the George Washington Bridge’s upper level to punish Fort Lee’s mayor for refusing to endorse then-New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s re-election campaign. Despite disguising this corrupt act as a traffic study, Kelly and Baroni were indicted for and convicted of wire fraud, defrauding a federally funded entity, and conspiracy to defraud. Petitioner Kelly and Respondent Baroni now argue that the Port Authority was never deprived of a legally-protected property right and that fraud cannot have occurred because the alleged victim received exactly what was bargained for, even though the public officials lied about their true intentions. Respondent United States contends that the Port Authority was deprived of a property right because Kelly and Baroni’s traffic-study lie encumbered the Port Authority’s exclusive free use of the George Washington Bridge and because neither Kelly nor Baroni had the authority to make such drastic changes. The outcome of this case has implications on future politics and whether political corruption should be prosecuted as a federal crime.

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, under Section 633a(a) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), federal-sector plaintiffs must show that age discrimination was the but-for cause of an adverse employment action, or whether federal-sector plaintiffs must merely show that their age was a motivating factor for the adverse action. Section 633a(a) states that employment decisions affecting employees or applicants at least 40 years of age “shall be made free from any discrimination based on age.” Noris Babb, a clinical pharmacist, sued Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Robert Wilkie alleging, among other claims, age and gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the ADEA after she was denied a promotion, training, and two clinic positions. Babb argues that Section 633a(a) requires her only to prove that age was a motivating factor in the VA’s adverse personnel decisions. Wilkie, on the other hand, contends that Section 633a(a) requires Babb to prove that age was the but-for cause of—that is, the actual reason for—the employment decisions. This case has implications on the ability of federal-sector workers to prove age discrimination claims under the ADEA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) precludes judicial review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“the Board”) decision to grant an inter partes review after determining that an effective statute of limitations under Section 315(b) does not apply. Thryv, Inc., contends that the plain language of Sections 314(d) and 315(b) and relevant Supreme Court precedent renders such decisions nonappealable. Click-To-Call Technologies counters that the plain language of Section 314(d) contains nothing to indicate that judicial review of the Board’s interpretation of Section 315(b) is prohibited, and that Supreme Court precedent has confirmed this understanding. The outcome of this case will have important implications on the scope of administrative power, incentives for product innovation, and the integrity of the patent system.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case arises out of a custody dispute between an Italian father, Domenico Taglieri, and an American mother, Michelle Monasky, whose marriage had deteriorated, and where the mother had removed the child to the United States before a court could determine the parents’ custody rights. To determine whether the child must be returned to Italy, the Supreme Court must decide whether to uphold the Sixth Circuit’s order to return the child based on its affirmation of the district court’s determination that the child habitually resided in Italy. Monasky argues that the Hague Convention’s text supports an actual-agreement standard for habitual residence, and that the Hague Convention does not contemplate courts imposing habitual residence on a child when the child’s situation in the state would be precarious and the child lacks meaningful connections with the state. She further argues that the statute, appellate history, and the mixed legal and factual nature of habitual residence support de novo review. Taglieri responds that the lower courts properly applied a fact-sensitive analysis of the child’s situation in Italy and, furthermore, that if “actual agreement” were required, the Hague Convention would under-protect children in hotly disputed custody cases who most need protection. He also contends that clear-error review should apply because habitual residence issues are more factual than legal, and because such review is more expedient, consistent with the Hague Convention’s aims. The outcome of this case will have implications for international child abduction and custody cases involving claims of domestic violence.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Supreme Court of Arizona correctly weighed mitigating and aggravating factors when conducting an independent review of James Erin McKinney’s capital sentence, and whether the correction of the original sentencing error required resentencing by a jury at the trial level. McKinney argues that, by conducting a sentencing review, the state court reopened his finalized case, thus allowing the application of modern constitutional protections in his sentencing, which require resentencing by a jury. Arizona counters that the independent review conducted by the state court did not constitute direct review that reopened McKinney’s case and that McKinney’s sentence does not require review at the trial level. The outcome of this case will impact the retroactive application of newly established constitutional rights in capital sentencing and could afford a new opportunity for capital defendants for whom a judge conducted sentencing to be resentenced by a jury.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case consolidates four lawsuits, together asking the Court to determine if Section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act statutorily obliges Congress to fulfill outstanding payments to insurance companies after Congress failed to appropriate funds for these payments. Section 1342 established a “risk-corridors program,” whereby health insurers and the United States government would share unforeseen costs associated with providing universal healthcare on “health benefit exchanges.” Petitioners argue that Section 1342 statutorily requires the government to make full “payments out” to insurance companies who have suffered a loss—regardless of whether Congress appropriated enough money to cover these losses. Respondent, the United States, counters that Section 1342 merely created a program to oversee “payments out” to health insurers, and even if it does oblige the government to make payments, Congress’s appropriations riders repealed that obligation. The outcome of this case has implications for the separation of powers principles and the future of public-private partnerships.

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 a formal objection at sentencing is necessary for criminal defendants to receive reasonableness review of the length of their sentence upon appeal. Gonzalo Holguin-Hernandez argues that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51 (“Rule 51”) only requires defense counsel to argue prior to sentencing that a certain sentence would be unreasonable, thereby rendering a formal post-sentencing objection unnecessary. The United States agrees and also argues against the Fifth Circuit’s requirement of a formal post-sentence objection. The Court appointed an Amicus to brief the opposing side of the issue. Amicus argues that both Petitioner and Respondent misinterpret Rule 51, and that defendants must clearly state their objection and its grounds to preserve an argument for reasonableness review on appeal. The outcome of this case has implications for how clearly defendants need to articulate their objections to a court’s sentence and for the consistency of court procedure across criminal and civil cases.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources