Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), should apply retroactively. If so, the Court may decide whether the sudden snatching of a purse constitutes a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”). Gregory Welch was sentenced to a mandatory minimum fifteen years of prison under the ACCA, because he had three previous violent felony convictions. Subsequently, Welch challenged his sentence, arguing that one of the predicate convictions, Florida-law strong-arm robbery, was not a violent felony. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit disagreed, relying on the so-called “residual clause” of the ACCA. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Welch contends that Johnson struck down the residual clause as unconstitutional. Welch and the United States both argue that Johnson should be applied retroactively. Further, Welch argues that because Johnson should be applied retroactively and his conviction was based solely on the portion of the ACCA that was deemed unconstitutional, his conviction should be vacated. But the United States argues that the case should be remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to decide whether a sudden snatching of a purse constitutes a violent felony under the constitutionally valid “elements prong” of the ACCA. The Court’s decision could increase ACCA-related litigation and decrease the length of some defendants’ sentences.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Michigan has attempted to regulate State-charted nonbank subsidiaries of national banks. National banks are governed by the National Bank Act and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Through §484(a) of the National Bank Act, national banks are not subject to State regulation. Through 12 C.F.R. 7.4006, the OCC expanded the reach of §484 to cover subsidiaries of national banks as well. Wachovia Mortgage, a State-chartered nonbank subsidiary of Wachovia Bank, a national bank, operates in Michigan. Michigan seeks to exercise regulatory power over the entity. Both courts below held that the OCC’s expansion of §484 was valid and that Michigan could not exercise regulatory power over the subsidiary, Wachovia Mortgage. The decision of the Supreme Court in this case will affect the balance of power between State and Federal regulatory and consumer protection measures.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Following a transaction in which he exchanged illegally-obtained prescription drugs for a firearm, Petitioner Watson was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) for "use" of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. In addition to sentences imposed under other federal statutes, Watson received a mandatory consecutive five year sentence, imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D). Watson pled guilty but reserved the right to challenge whether the agreed-upon facts supported his conviction. The Fifth Circuit confirmed his conviction, finding that receiving a firearm constitutes "use" under the statute and under Supreme Court law set forth in Bailey v. United States, which defined "use" as "active employment" of the firearm. Watson argues that receiving a firearm is insufficient to constitute use, while the United States contends that both receiving and offering a firearm constitute "active employment" and therefore "use" under the statute. The Court's decision will set uniform standards of punishment throughout the country. A finding for Watson could reduce crowding in an already overburdened prison system, while a decision for the United States could reduce the strain on a similarly overburdened court system.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Philip Morris removed a class action tobacco lawsuit from an Arkansas state court to the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Plaintiffs Watson and Lawson sought to remand the case to state court, but their motion was denied. The Eighth Circuit held that Philip Morris was a corporation qualifying as a “person acting under a federal officer” and thus entitled to removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). The Supreme Court takes up the question of whether parties operating in an arena of heavy federal regulation qualify under this federal officer removal statute or, to the contrary, if the statute’s origins and history preclude such interpretation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

A jury found that defendant Recuenco assaulted his wife using a “deadly weapon,” but the jury was never asked to find whether he used a “firearm.” Afterwards, the trial judge—independent of the jury—found that Recuenco used a “firearm” and increased his sentence by three years. Where the judge’s failure to instruct the jury about a “firearm” did not influence their verdict, may a reviewing court uphold the resulting sentence if it finds the erroneous instruction was harmless? Or must the court vacate the sentence because the error tainted the entire trial? The State of Washington argues that an incomplete jury instruction qualifies as a harmless error. To the contrary, Recuenco argues that the judge's imposition of an enhanced sentence based on facts not found by the jury violates his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

The citizens of the State of Washington enacted a “top-two” primary law, Initiative 872, which allows primary voters to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation. The top-two candidates from the primary then advance to the general election. The law also permits candidates for some offices to disclose the name of their preferred political party on the ballot. The Republican Party argues that the law violates the right of association protected by the First Amendment. Washington State Grange argues that a candidate’s personal “preference” serves only as information for the voter, while the parties retain the right to nominate and endorse their own candidates. The Court must decide whether top-two primary systems that permit candidates to disclose their party preference on the ballot, without having any formal affiliation with the political party, violate political parties’ associational rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

Under Michigan law, individuals may bring personal injury suits against manufacturers of FDA-approved prescription drugs only if the plaintiffs can show that FDA approval depended on fraudulent submission or withholding of information. 27 Michigan residents sued Warner-Lambert Co., claiming personal injury arising from using Rezulin, Warner-Lambert's FDA-approved drug for diabetes treatment. Warner-Lambert argues that Michigan law is preempted by federal law because permitting state courts to second-guess the FDA's product-approval and fraud-detection processes interferes with the agency's essential functions and promotes regulatory uncertainty. The Michigan plaintiffs respond that federal preemption does not apply to traditional state tort claims. The decision in this case will clarify the scope of FDA autonomy in policing the drug-approval process and plaintiffs' freedom to assert state tort claims in areas regulated by federal entities.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Andre Wallace was tried for and convicted of murder based on a confession obtained by Chicago detectives when he was fifteen years old. After several appeals, Wallace’s conviction was annulled by the Illinois Appellate Court, which held that Wallace was arrested without probable cause and that his unlawfully obtained confession could not be used to convict him of murder because it was not “sufficiently attenuated from his unlawful arrest.”  Wallace v. City of Chicago, 440 F.3d 421, 422 (7th Cir. 2006). Left with no other substantial evidence to convict Wallace, the prosecution dropped all charges against him. Wallace then sued the City of Chicago as well as Detectives Kristen Kato and Eugene Roy, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The district court granted the detectives and the City of Chicago summary judgment on all of Wallace’s claims for his failure to meet the two-year statute of limitation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision and found that “false arrest claims accrue at the time of the arrest,” rather than at the time the claimant’s conviction is overturned, concluding that Wallace’s claim was barred. Wallace v. City of Chicago, 440 F.3d at 423.  The Seventh Circuit majority and dissent indicate the existence of a conflict between circuit courts as to when the statute of limitations begins to run for damages claims resulting from false arrests.  The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will reflect its view on the correct balance between state interests, such as efficiency in the trial process, and the rights of individual defendants, such as having the opportunity to recover for damages arising from ? 1983 violations. Whether the statute of limitations begins to run at the time of arrest or at the time a conviction is overturned will influence when a claimant will be able to bring ? 1983 claims and may limit the availability of remedies for ? 1983 claims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

In December 1993, Khalil Kholi was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Three years later, Kholi filed a motion to reduce his sentence, seeking discretionary leniency in state court. In 2007, Kholi filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court. The federal district court denied Kholi's petition on the grounds that it was not timely filed under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA”). The First Circuit reversed, holding that a discretionary post-conviction motion to reduce a sentence constitutes collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) and tolls AEDPA's one-year limitation period. Petitioner A.T. Wall appealed, arguing that a discretionary sentence-reduction motion does not constitute collateral review because it does not challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence. Kholi counters that collateral review includes motions seeking equitable, discretionary relief, and argues that his motion seeking a discretionary reduction of an imposed sentence tolls AEDPA's statute of limitations. The Supreme Court's decision will affect the finality of state court judgments, as well as the state court remedies a prisoner can pursue before filing a petition for federal habeas corpus relief.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Charles Martin is serving life imprisonment for the robbery and first-degree murder of Charles Stapleton. After exhausting his direct appeals, Martin filed a petition for habeas corpus in California state court, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective. The California Supreme Court eventually dismissed the petition under the state’s “timeliness” rule, which bars claims filed after “substantial delay.” Martin then filed a habeas corpus claim in federal court on similar grounds. The federal district court found that the state timeliness grounds were “adequate” for dismissal of the federal case. Under the adequate state grounds doctrine, a federal court will not review the decision of a state court if the federal court’s decision would have no impact on the case. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that the state had failed to prove that California’s timeliness rule was sufficiently clear and consistently applied so as to be an adequate state bar. Martin argues that the Ninth Circuit was correct in its ruling, while Petitioner James Walker counters that the rule is indeed consistently applied. If the Supreme Court finds the rule adequate, this will likely increase denials of federal habeas corpus petitions; if the rule is not adequate, however, California may be required to use a more precise standard in determining what constitutes an untimely petition.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources