Issues

The Supreme Court will clarify the interaction between the Hobbs Act of 1948 (“the Hobbs Act”) and Congress’ commerce power over intra-state activity. The Hobbs Act prohibits obstruction or delay of “the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts . . . to do [so].” Petitioner David Anthony Taylor was convicted in federal court for affecting interstate commerce by attempting to rob a marijuana dealer of his “drugs and drug proceeds.” Taylor argues that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his activity had any effect on interstate commerce, and thus he was deprived of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment due process rights. However, the United States contends that the aggregation principle of the Commerce Clause grants federal jurisdiction over the activity as part of a “national market,” even if the stolen drugs remained entirely within one state. Consequently, the United States asserts that the jurisdictional element of the Hobbs Act is satisfied as a matter-of-law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

Brent Taylor, executive director of the Antique Aircraft Association ("AAA") filed a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request with the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") to obtain plans and specifications for a vintage aircraft. After the FAA denied Taylor's request on trade-secret grounds, he sued to compel disclosure of the information. The D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court's finding that Taylor's claim was barred because he had been "virtually represented" in a prior action by Greg Herrick, a fellow AAA member whose prior FOIA request for the same records the Tenth Circuit found to have been properly denied due to trade-secret protections. Taylor asserts that preclusion of his claim on the "virtual representation" theory violated his due process rights because he had no legal relationship with Herrick and received no notice of the prior suit. The FAA counters that preclusion was appropriate because Herrick had adequately represented Taylor's interests in the earlier action. The decision in this case will clarify the circumstances under which courts may bar claims under the "virtual representation" theory and may influence plaintiffs' litigation strategies, broaden defendants' exposure to duplicative suits, and limit the availability of FOIA requests of certain members of the public.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Alejandra Tapia was convicted of smuggling illegal aliens and sentenced to fifty-one months in prison. At her sentencing, the district court factored in her history of substance abuse in its decision to give her a sentence beyond the minimum term so that she could enter and complete an in-custody drug rehabilitation program. Tapia appealed her sentence to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's decision. Citing a circuit split, Tapia appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to determine whether it was proper for the district court judge to cite Tapia's rehabilitative needs in ordering a longer prison sentence. Petitioner Tapia contends that the plain meaning of the Sentencing Reform Act and the legislative history behind this Act confirm that rehabilitation is an inappropriate consideration in prison sentencing. The United States agrees with Tapia and urges vacating the lower court decision. Writing as amicus curiae by invitation of the Supreme Court, Professor Stephanos Bibas asserts that under the Sentencing Reform Act, district courts may properly consider the rehabilitative potential of in-prison targeted treatment programs when determining a prison sentence. Ultimately, this decision will impact when a district court may use incarceration to punish defendants and may also affect particular groups of defendants sentenced to incarceration.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

After falling through a deck on property owned by Respondent Kan Pacific Saipan, LTD, Petitioner Kouichi Taniguchi filed suit against the company for negligence. The district court granted summary judgment in Kan Pacific’s favor, and also awarded the company costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6); the award included costs incurred in translating various documents from Japanese to English. The Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decision, holding that the phrase “compensation of interpreters” in § 1920(6) applies to written translations, in addition to verbal interpretations. Taniguchi now appeals, arguing that the statute’s plain meaning, structure, and legislative history indicate that the term “interpreters” should be limited to oral translators of spoken language. The Supreme Court will decide whether litigants can recover for non-verbal translation costs; this decision has the potential to increase recoverable court costs, and to deter meritorious litigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Faced with a prison sentence of more than fifteen years for committing three “violent felonies” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”), Marcus Sykes is challenging the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that his conviction under Indiana law for fleeing from law enforcement officers in a vehicle constitutes a “violent felony.” Sykes argues that classifying his offense as a “violent felony” presumes that there is violence associated with flight from police. According to Sykes, such speculation by the courts may undermine the Sixth Amendment rights of individuals faced with a mandatory sentence enhancement and is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling that other offenses with a similar propensity for violence are not “violent felonies.” However, the United States contends that fleeing from police in a vehicle is both violent in nature and in practice, as it poses a risk of serious harm to law enforcement officers and members of the public. In light of this danger of violence, the United States believes that the Seventh Circuit properly treated vehicular flight as a “violent felony” under the ACCA. The Supreme Court’s decision would help resolve the disagreement between the Seventh and the Eleventh Circuit over this issue.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Earth Island Institute and other conservation groups sued the United States Forest Service after it authorized application of regulations 36 C.F.R. 215.4(a) and 36 C.F.R. 215.12(f) to a planned salvage logging project in the Sequoia National Forest. The conservation groups claimed that the regulations, which limit public notice, comment and administrative appeals, were invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act, which protects the ability of the public to appeal administrative actions. The parties settled the dispute over the regulations as they were applied to the salvage logging project, but the conservation groups continued the suit as a direct facial challenge to the regulations themselves. At issue before the Supreme Court in this case is whether judicial review of the regulations was proper, whether the conservation groups established standing and ripeness to challenge the regulations after settling the controversy over the regulations’ application to the specific project, and whether issuing a nationwide injunction was a proper remedy. The outcome of the case will influence federal agencies’ requirements to provide administrative appeals, the ability of the public to challenge administrative actions, and the scope of equitable remedies against improper applications of agency regulations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide the extent to which the National Park Service (“NPS”) has the authority to regulate non-federal lands located within federal conservation system units (“CSUs”) under Section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”). See Brief for the Petitioner, John Sturgeon at 17. Petitioner John Sturgeon argues that Section 103(c) of ANILCA extends regulatory power to NPS only over public lands within the boundaries of CSUs and that lands and waters owned by the State, a Native Corporation, or a private party will not be subjected to such regulations. See id. Conversely, Respondent Bert Frost maintains that the contested navigable waters do not fall in the carve-out identified by Section 103(c) and that NPS has the authority to regulate such territory in the pursuit of federal interests. See Brief for the Respondent, Bert Frost at 25. The Supreme Court’s decision will impact the extent of Alaska’s control over resources within the state. See Brief for the Petitioner at 17.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC, brought a securities fraud class action against Charter Communications' vendors Scientific Atlanta and Motorola, alleging a scheme in which Charter contracted with the vendors to purchase set-top cable boxes at higher-than-normal prices and sell advertising at higher-than-normal rates. These transactions served to artificially inflate Charter's stock price. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that Stoneridge's claim was foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A., 511 U.S. 164 (1994), in which the Court determined that mere "aiders and abettors" of fraud cannot be held liable.  The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Thus, the issue before the Supreme Court is whether a party may be held liable for fraud where it made no misleading public statements (or omissions), and had no duty to do make disclosures, but engaged in transactions with a public corporation designed to artificially enhance the public corporation's financial statements.  How the Supreme Court decides this case may set a new standard for determining whether third-parties can be held liable for investor-related fraud.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

AnimalFeeds filed a class action lawsuit against the four major parcel tanker transportation companies, including Stolt-Nielsen, alleging antitrust violations. As per a written contact between the parties, the case was referred to an arbitration panel. The contract, however, is silent as to whether class arbitrations are permissible. Stolt-Nielsen argues that the silence in the agreement should mean that class arbitration is not permitted, while AnimalFeeds claims the decision should be left to the arbitrators. The arbitrators decided to allow class arbitration, but the district court (S.D.N.Y.) refused. The Second Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court's decision will place an economic burden on the losing side and may affect international businesses decisions on whether to select a forum in the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 1994, J. Howard Marshall II, a very wealthy oil executive, married Vickie Lynn Marshall (“Vickie”), a model and actress who worked under the name Anna Nicole Smith. J. Howard Marshall died shortly thereafter, leaving the bulk of his estate to his son E. Pierce Marshall (“Pierce”). Vickie filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 1996, and Pierce brought a defamation claim against her in the bankruptcy court. Vickie made a compulsory counterclaim, alleging that Pierce had tortiously interfered with J. Howard Marshall’s intent to give her part of his estate. The bankruptcy court rendered a judgment in favor of Vickie. Pierce eventually appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which reversed the bankruptcy court’s decision on the grounds that Vickie’s counterclaim was not a “core” proceeding, and therefore was improperly before the bankruptcy court. Vickie’s estate, represented by her executor Howard K. Stern, argues that the Ninth Circuit erroneously applied 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) because the provision categorically establishes compulsory counterclaims as core proceedings. The estate of Pierce Marshall asserts that the counterclaim raised in this case deals with a tort claim that arises under state law, and is therefore not part of the core proceedings. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether Congress intended for 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) to categorize all compulsory counterclaims as core proceedings and, if this was Congress’ intent, whether this intent is constitutional.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources