Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether the Supreme Court of Mississippi correctly held that the state prosecutor in Curtis Flowers’ criminal jury trial did not violate Batson v. Kentucky when he struck black prospective jurors. Flowers argues that the state court failed to properly consider the prosecutor’s history of Batson violations in his specific case, and that these violations—along with other indications of racial discrimination—demonstrate the prosecutor’s purposeful racial discrimination against black prospective jurors. Conversely, Mississippi argues that the state court properly weighed the prosecutor’s history of violations and correctly determined that the prosecutor’s reasons for striking black jurors were legitimate. The outcome of this case will help further define the scope of the Batson doctrine and determine how heavily a court should weigh an attorney’s history of Batson violations when assessing a Batson claim.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will determine whether the Second Circuit erred in creating a per se rule that private operators of public access channels are state actors subject to constitutional liability and holding that this is true even where the state does not control the private operator’s board or operations. Petitioners, Manhattan Community Access Corporation et al., also known as Manhattan Neighborhood Network (“MNN”), argue that the Second Circuit violated Supreme Court precedent by determining the constitutional forum question before the state actor issue. MNN also asserts that the public access channels at issue, properly examined under that precedent, would not warrant constitutional protections. Respondents, DeeDee Halleck and Jesus Papoleto Melendez (“Halleck and Melendez”) counter that New York City made the legislative decision to remove MNN’s editorial discretion, thereby designating the public access channels as a public forum warranting constitutional protection. Halleck and Melendez also contend that administering a public forum constitutes a public function, meaning that constitutional protections apply. From a policy perspective, this case is important because it may have implications for the editorial discretion of other private entities—such as YouTube and Twitter—that host expressive spaces open to the public, including government officials.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to interpret 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) (“Section 3624(e)”), which provides that a defendant’s term of supervised release is tolled when the defendant is convicted of a crime. Jason Mont contends that his pretrial detention from an unrelated crime did not toll his supervised release. Instead, he claims that his supervised release expired during his pretrial detention period, and thus that the district court did not have proper jurisdiction over his case. The United States, on the other hand, argues that confinement in the form of pretrial detention is equivalent to a conviction for purposes of Section 3624(e), and that the statute tolls a defendant’s term of supervised release to avoid allowing a defendant to serve his term of supervised release while imprisoned. The outcome of this case has implications for understanding the connection between conviction, pretrial detention, and when a defendant’s supervised release is tolled.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to resolve whether the state’s ownership and maintenance of a 40-foot-tall World War I memorial shaped like a Latin cross violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Petitioner American Legion proposes that the Court adopt a standard for Establishment Clause violations that focuses on coercion, or whether the government compelled citizens to participate in religion. Under this standard, the American Legion contends that the memorial is constitutional because it is a passive display. Alternatively, co-Petitioner Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, argues that the memorial is constitutional because its purpose and meaning are secular. On the other hand, Respondent American Humanist Association asserts that that the Supreme Court’s existing Establishment Clause jurisprudence already relies on a clear standard—the Lemon endorsement test—and maintains that the memorial is unconstitutional under that test. They advance that the use of a Latin cross reflects a sympathetic preference for Christian soldiers, and claim that the size and permanency of the memorial adds to the monument’s endorsement of Christianity. The outcome of this case has grave implications for other existing monuments and memorials that incorporate religious symbols, and whether they will be allowed to stand.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the sentencing requirements under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) (“Section 3583(k)”), which imposes a mandatory resentencing requirement for individuals who violate a condition of their supervised release. Specifically, the Court will consider whether Section 3583(k) denies criminal defendants their right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment. The United States argues that the mandatory sentencing is constitutional because the jury right only applies to the imposition of a sentence, while Section 3583(k) merely administers a sentence that had already been imposed. Haymond contends that Section 3583(k) imposes a new sentence for the conduct found to be a violation of the conditions of supervised release. This outcome in this case may have a meaningful impact on the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment and influence how courts determine which punishment to impose after a defendant violates conditions of probation or parole.  

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 a debtor-licensor’s “rejection” of a trademark licensing agreement terminates the licensee’s rights under the agreement. Mission Product Holdings Inc. argues against termination, claiming that no such termination would occur from a breach of contract outside of the bankruptcy context, and that, in any case, there is a statutory exception that protects a licensee’s rights to use intellectual property post-rejection. Tempnology, LLC counters that rejection limits the licensee to the sole remedy of seeking monetary damages, and that the statutory exception for intellectual property does not contemplate trademarks as intellectual property. The outcome of this case will clarify the effect of rejection on contractual rights and whether trademarks are distinguishable from other types of intellectual property under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will determine whether the government is a “person” for the purposes of post-issuance review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). Return Mail, Inc. (“Return Mail”), the owner of a patent for processing undeliverable mail items, argues that Congress intended the AIA to incorporate a specific meaning of the term “person,” supported by statute and judicial precedent, that excluded the government, and would thus prohibit government agencies from initiating AIA review proceedings. The United States Postal Service (“Postal Service”) counters that the statutory context, as supported by historical evidence and statements made by the Supreme Court, reveals Congress’s intent to include government agencies in the term “person” for the purposes of the AIA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the term “person” in the AIA did not exclude the government, and that the government could petition for patent review under the AIA. Return Mail is now appealing that decision in a case that will have implications for patent litigation, the estoppel doctrine, and executive agencies.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to resolve whether the National Park Service (“NPS”) has the authority to regulate activity on navigable waters on non-federal land located within, but not deemed part of, the national park system in Alaska. John Sturgeon contends that Section 103(c) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (“ANILCA”), which defines “public lands” as those to which the United States has title, excludes non-federal lands and waters falling within the boundaries of Alaska’s national parks from NPS regulations. Sturgeon further argues that the NPS does not derive any regulatory authority from any reserved water rights the federal government may own. Bert Frost, in his official capacity as Alaska Regional Director of the NPS, contends that Section 103(c) merely restricts the NPS’s preexisting regulatory authority over navigable waters within national parks, as granted by Congress. According to Frost, the NPS may only enforce water-related rules regarding activities hazardous to the use and management of public lands. The outcome of this case will have implications concerning the balance of power between the state and federal government to regulate non-public lands and waters falling within the national park system in Alaska.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the scope of power granted to the States under the Twenty-first Amendment and to explain when exercises of that power infringe upon the dormant Commerce Clause. Tennessee requires that a person must be a Tennessee resident for two years before they may receive a retail or wholesale liquor license and for ten years before they may re-apply for a retail or liquor license. Clayton Byrd, Tennessee Fine Wines and Spirits, LLC, and Affluere Investments, Inc. argue that Tennessee’s requirements amount to discrimination against out-of-state economic interests in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Association counters that the Twenty-first Amendment grants the States broad power to regulate the in-state distribution of alcohol, and that a state does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause if the state treats alcohol produced out-of-state the same as alcohol produced in-state. The outcome of this case will help determine how the power to regulate the sale, use, and distribution of alcohol is divided between the federal government and the States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, which established a requirement that property owners must first exhaust state‑court remedies before their federal takings claims are ripe for litigation in federal court. The Township of Scott’s zoning ordinance requires that property owners whose property contains a cemetery must leave that property open to the public during daylight hours and allow state agents access to determine the existence and location of any property or to ensure compliance with the ordinance. Rose Mary Knick, a resident of the Township, sued the Township after receiving violation notices, arguing that the ordinance is a taking without just compensation. Knick further argues that Williamson County’s ripeness requirement is an unworkable standard that prevents plaintiffs from reasonably accessing such courts. The Township of Scott counters that Knick does not have a valid federal statutory claim because none of Knick’s federal rights were violated. That is, the Township argues, a state‑court remedy for just compensation existed, which Knick did not avail herself of. Further, it contends that Williamson County does not prevent litigants from accessing federal court because courts have flexibility in deciding if it is fair to hear a plaintiff’s claim. Homeowners, takings litigation, and access to federal forums are some of the considerations implicated in this case. This is because overruling Williamson County may allow future plaintiffs to bring their claims in the court of their choosing without insurmountable procedural obstacles barring their path.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources