Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether an Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure, which only allows postconviction relief if there has been a significant change in law to make it an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment, prevents federal review. Petitioner John Montenegro Cruz claims that the rule cannot apply because it conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedent requiring the application of settled rules of constitutional law on postconviction review. Cruz also asserts that the rule requires consideration of federal law, and thus that the Supreme Court may review determinations made under it for consistency with federal law. Respondent, the state of Arizona, argues that its Rule prevents federal review because it is premised on a matter of state law, rather than federal law. Arizona asserts that its rule only regulates when a claim may be brought, not the rule to be applied when evaluating the claim.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide an issue of statutory construction; specifically, on what basis should the Secretary of the Treasury evaluate taxpayer violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). The Bank Secrecy Act requires citizens with a financial interest in a foreign bank account to report that financial interest to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for each year that the interest exists. Alexandru Bittner contends that evaluating violations under the Bank Secrecy Act on a per-form basis is consistent with the statute’s text, history, and purpose. The United States counters that the text of the Bank Secrecy Act clearly outlines that a violation occurs on a per-account basis, not a per-form basis, and that the statute’s history and purpose confirm this viewpoint. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for tax law, banking regulations, civil penalties for tax violations, and financial interests in foreign bank accounts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a work of art that visually resembles its source material but transforms its meaning constitutes fair use under copyright law. The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts (AWF) argues that several screenprints created by Andy Warhol, which derive from an original photograph by Lynn Goldsmith, are transformative and constitute fair use because they portray a significantly different message than Goldsmith’s original photograph. Goldsmith argues that since her photograph is recognizable in Warhol’s prints and the works share the same purpose, the prints are not fair use but rather infringe her copyright in her photo. The outcome of this case carries implications for copyright holders’ economic incentives, marginalized artists’ commercial prospects, and creative expression.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split and decide when the statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for post-conviction DNA testing begin to run. Rodney Reed argues that the statute of limitations for his § 1983 claim for DNA testing should begin after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied rehearing because this is the point at which he exhausted his state court options. Bryan Goertz counters that the statute of limitations should begin after the trial court denied Reed’s DNA testing request because this is when Reed first became aware that his right to DNA testing was allegedly being violated. The outcome of this case has significant implications for federalism, inmate rights, and the accuracy of the justice system.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether California’s Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause by failing the extraterritoriality doctrine and the Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc. balancing test. National Pork Producers Council (“NPPC”) argues that Proposition 12 violates the extraterritoriality doctrine by producing a “practical effect,” beyond its influence in California, that unduly burdens the integrated national pork market. NPPC also claims that Proposition 12 does not pass the Pike balancing test, as it imposes an undue burden on out-of-state commerce that is clearly excessive compared to its local benefits. Karen Ross, California’s Secretary of Food and Agriculture, counters that Proposition 12 regulates only the in-state pork market and that the opposing side’s expansive reading of the extraterritoriality doctrine may render it meaningless. Ross also argues that Proposition 12 survives the Pike balancing test. The outcome of this case has important implications for determining the scope of the dormant Commerce Clause as well as the extent of states’ police power.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether highly compensated white-collar employees must meet the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 to be exempt from overtime pay. To be exempt from overtime pay, 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 requires that employees receive certain minimum weekly guarantees and that a reasonable relationship exist between the guaranteed amount and amount actually earned. Helix argues that incorporating 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 into the Fair Labor Standards Act’s highly compensated employee exception goes against the text and regulatory history of the highly compensated employee exemption regulation and unnecessarily complicates the exemption process. Hewitt counters that 29 C.F.R § 541.604 has been embraced in the text and practice of highly compensated employee exemption regulation and that it encourages employers to improve welfare and increase job slots. The outcome of this case has significant implications for the oil, gas, and nursing industries, as well as their employees’ job markets.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the jurisdiction granted to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) by the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) to regulate wetlands. One test for determining whether a wetland falls under the CWA is the continuous surface connection test, which allows a wetland to be regulated when it shares a continuous surface connection with a body of water. Another test is the significant nexus test, which allows an adjacent wetland to be regulated when it significantly affects waters covered under the CWA, regardless of a surface connection between them. The Sacketts assert that, under the principles of statutory interpretation and congressional intent, a version of the continuous surface connection test is proper and therefore their lot of land does not fall under the jurisdiction of the CWA. The EPA counters that due to judicial deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of statutes, the significant nexus test is the proper test, and therefore the Sacketts’ land does fall under the jurisdiction of the CWA. The Court’s decision in this case implicates the costs which industries must bear for their infrastructure, the allocation of state and federal power, and the protection of water quality across the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to interpret Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”), which prohibits discriminatory voting practices. Petitioner Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill claims Alabama’s recently redrawn congressional district map, which results in one majority-minority district, does not violate the VRA because it was drawn using race-neutral guidelines. Respondent Evan Milligan counters that the map violates the VRA because its effect is to concentrate Black voters into one district, undermining their voting power. This case has important ramifications for future redistricting efforts and for claims of vote dilution under the VRA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to define MoneyGram’s Official Checks (“Official Checks”) to determine which states have jurisdiction over funds from unclaimed Official Checks, and then to clarify which abandoned financial instruments are subject to the Federal Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act (“FDA”). The FDA sets the standards for the remittance of funds payable on unclaimed financial instruments. Petitioner Delaware argues that Official Checks are “third party bank checks,” not “money orders,” “traveler’s checks,” or “other similar written instruments” and are therefore not subject to the FDA. Respondents Pennsylvania and Wisconsin counter that Official Checks are subject to the FDA as either “money orders” or “other similar written instruments.” The outcome of this case has implications for the state receipt of funds from unpaid financial instruments, the role of the Court in interpreting legislation, and the direction of future litigation regarding the recovery of funds.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) allows veterans who apply for disability compensation benefits within one year of discharge from the military to have retroactive disability compensation benefits counted from the date of discharge instead of the date of application for benefits. In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether equitable tolling, an exemption to statutes of limitations under which plaintiffs who could not discover the basis to bring their lawsuits until after the expiration of the limitations period may bring a claim, applies to this one-year deadline. Although 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) does not have an explicit statute of limitation, Arellano argues that the statute functionally serves as a statute of limitations and that the Court has held that equitable tolling applies by default to functional statutes of limitations, including those applicable to suits against the government. McDonough counters that § 5110(b)(1) is not a statute of limitations, and that if Congress intended to allow equitable tolling to apply to the statute, it would have explicitly stated so in the law. The Court’s decision in this case will impact veterans’ welfare and the speed and procedure of disability claims administration.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources