Issues

In March of 1999, Respondent Wykenna Watson obtained a civil protection order (“CPO”) against Petitioner John Robertson, alleging Robertson attacked her in March 1999. In June of 1999, Robertson violated his CPO when he attacked Watson again. In a plea bargain with the United States Attorney’s Office, Robertson agreed to plead guilty to attempted aggravated assault for the March incident in return for the United States’ agreement not to pursue two other charges arising from the June incident. Afterwards, Watson brought a criminal contempt action against Robertson, alleging that the June incident violated the CPO. The trial court convicted Robertson of three violations of his CPO, and Robertson subsequently petitioned to have his convictions vacated. Robertson argued that Watson’s criminal contempt action violated his plea bargain with the United States because criminal contempt proceedings are necessarily brought on behalf of the United States. In this case, the Supreme Court’s decision may alter criminal contempt proceedings in the face of plea bargains and affect the balance of power between the branches of government.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2002, Petitioner Dana Roberts slipped on a patch of ice while working for his employer, Respondent Sea-Land Services. After the fall, Roberts claimed disability and sought compensation under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Initially, Sea-Land paid Roberts, but, in May 2005, Sea-Land discontinued payments. An administrative law judge ordered Sea-Land to resume payments, but a dispute arose concerning the proper method for calculating payment. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide when Petitioner Roberts was “newly awarded compensation” under the Act. Roberts argues that this occurred in 2007, when the administrative law judge entered the compensation order. However, Sea-Land Services argues that the judge correctly determined that this occurred in 2002, the year Roberts became entitled to compensation. The Court’s decision will determine which fiscal year is used to calculate the maximum compensation owed. The result could substantially increase Roberts’s compensation under the Act, and will determine how such calculations are performed in similar federal compensation programs.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case concerns the effect of an erroneous denial of a criminal defendant's peremptory challenge to a prospective juror who was later seated. Defendant Rivera exercised a peremptory challenge to exclude Ms. Gomez, who worked administratively in a hospital known for treating gunshot victims. The trial judge denied the peremptory challenge, claiming a Batson violation. Ms. Gomez was seated on the jury, which then convicted Rivera of first degree murder in a gang related shooting. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that the judge committed harmless-error in denying this peremptory challenge. Upon appeal before the Supreme Court, Rivera argues that the erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge necessitates automatic reversal "because it undermines the trial structure for preserving the constitutional right to due process and an impartial jury." The State of Illinois, on the other hand, argues that there has been no constitutional violation, and that state law should determine the effect of an erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge on the verdict.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Victor Rita, a 25-year military veteran, was convicted of making false statements to a grand jury. At sentencing, Rita argued that his distinguished military service, his likelihood of being targeted in prison and his physical ailments justified a more lenient sentence than those set out in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. A District Court judge determined that he should receive the minimum sentence set fourth in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for his conviction. Upon appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals expressed its view that a within-guideliness sentence was presumptively reasonable and upheld Rita’s sentence. In reviewing this case, the Supreme Court will clarify the role that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are to play in sentencing decisions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

In 1996, a catheter burst during Charles Riegel's angioplasty. Riegel and his wife filed a product liability complaint against the catheter's manufacturer, Medtronic, Inc. A federal district court dismissed the complaint, holding that the Medical Device Amendments ("MDA") preempted most of the claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal and the Riegels appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The MDA generally forbids states from imposing requirements on devices that received premarket approval from the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Because the complaint depends on state law, Medtronic argues that letting it proceed would impose state requirements, usurp the power of the FDA, and stifle innovation in the medical field. Mrs. Riegel, who was substituted as plaintiff after her husband died, argues that while Congress gave the FDA power to regulate medical devices, it never meant to stop private citizens from suing negligent manufacturers. The outcome in this case will likely depend on the Supreme Court's style of statutory interpretation as well as its beliefs about the best way to manage the complex world of medical devices.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Richlin Security Service Company entered into two contracts with the Immigration and Naturalization Service, now part of the Department of Homeland Security, to provide security guard services for detainees being held at the Los Angeles International Airport. Due to a mutual mistake, Richlin's employees were misclassified as "Guard I" instead of "Guard II" in the contracts, which resulted in their underpayment. Richlin litigated this case four times before the Department of Transportation Contract Appeals Board, which awarded Richlin payment for worker's compensation premiums, payroll taxes, and wages. Richlin then applied pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act for reimbursement of attorney fees, expenses and costs associated with the underlying litigation. Although Richlin was fully compensated for attorney's fees, the Board only awarded Richlin reimbursement of paralegal services at cost rather than the amount billed, resulting in a $40,000 deficiency in recovery. Richlin appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the Board's decision. Richlin argues that paralegal services should be reimbursed under "attorney's fees" because paralegals perform substantive work which contributes to attorney work product. The United States contends that Congress intended for paralegal services to be considered "expenses" under the EAJA, which are reimbursed at cost. The outcome of this case will impact citizens and organizations that rely on the EAJA to bring claims against the government for vindication of rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The Ninth Circuit recently granted criminal defendant Steven Martell Collins’ habeas corpus petition on the grounds that the prosecution unconstitutionally used a peremptory challenge to strike a potential juror on account of her race. Although the prosecutor convinced the trial judge that the dismissal was not racially motivated and was therefore acceptable, the Ninth Circuit found the trial judge’s decision to be unreasonable despite the fact that the decision was affirmed on numerous occasions throughout the state court system and at the Federal District Court. The Ninth Circuit held that, despite the statutory deference granted to the original fact-finder by 28 U.S.C. § 2254, such deference was inappropriate here. The Supreme Court will likely interpret § 2254 to determine whether the Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority when it held that the trial judge was unreasonable in accepting the prosecutor’s proffered reasons for dismissing the juror.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Billy Joe Reynolds, a registered sex offender, was convicted for failing to update his registration upon moving from Missouri to Pennsylvania. Under the newly enacted Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”), sex offenders are required to update the federal registry within three days of a change of residence. An Interim Rule issued by the Attorney General applied the statute retroactively to all sex offenders convicted before SORNA’s enactment, including Reynolds. Reynolds challenged the legality of the Interim Rule but the circuit court dismissed his case for lack of standing. In the current suit, Reynolds argues that SORNA’s registration requirements are not applicable to individuals with pre-SORNA convictions. Reynolds adds that the Interim Rule made SORNA’s registration requirements applicable to him, thus giving him standing to challenge the Rule. The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether pre-SORNA sex offenders can state a claim against the Interim Rule, thus potentially delaying the government’s efforts in creating an effective national sex offender registry system. The decision may also prevent the government from issuing harsh new registration requirements without notice to individuals in Reynolds’s situation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Respondent Antonio Jackson was an employee of Petitioner Rent-A-Center West, Inc. (“RAC”). Jackson sued RAC, alleging racial discrimination. Because Jackson had signed an arbitration clause as part of his employment contract, RAC asked the court to refer the case to arbitration. Jackson, however, argued the employment contract was unconscionable and therefore invalid. The arbitration clause contains a provision that only an arbitrator can decide validity. Jackson argues that a court must decide the validity of the arbitration clause before requiring arbitration. RAC argues that the parties agreed in the contract to submit this question to arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held that, when a party attacks the validity of an arbitration clause because of unconscionability, a court must decide its validity. The Supreme Court’s decision will influence how arbitration clauses will function in the future and the degree of court involvement in arbitration agreements.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources