Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether inter partes review— a proceeding used by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board to reexamine the validity of existing patents—is constitutional. Oil States Energy Services, the patent owner, argues that inter partes review is unconstitutional because patents are private property rights that have historically been reviewable by courts. Oil States Energy Services further contends that patent rights can be eliminated only by an Article III court with a jury. In contrast, Greene’s Energy Group, the alleged patent infringer, counters that patents are public rights or “revocable privileges” and thus, Congress may assign an administrative agency to decide disputes involving patents. Furthermore, Greene’s Energy Group claims that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial does not apply to administrative proceedings, and that even if it did, there is no jury trial right for equitable claims, such as revocation of patent rights. The Supreme Court’s decision may either reinforce the administrative state and the ability of non-Article III tribunals to adjudicate certain claims, or instead, curtail the administrative state and instill trust in district courts to determine patent validity. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether a statute directing the federal courts to promptly dismiss a pending lawsuit, without amending the underlying law on which the lawsuit was brought, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers principles. Petitioner David Patchak argues that the Gun Lake Act, which removes subject-matter jurisdiction from any federal court to hear his case, is unconstitutional because it determines the outcome of pending litigation without changing the substantive law on which his lawsuit was first brought, specifically sovereign immunity law. Patchak believes that the statute grants the Legislature too much power over judicial matters. Respondents the Secretary of the Interior, et al. and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (the “Gun Lake Tribe”) argue that, because the statute merely dictates the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal courts, it is well within Congress’ constitutional powers. The Secretary and the Gun Lake Tribe maintain that if statutes like the Gun Lake Act are unconstitutional, the Judiciary will have too much power because courts will be able to determine their own jurisdiction, limited only by their own discretion. This case will provide clarity on the line of cases regarding Congress’ ability to affect pending litigation and govern the specificity with which Congress will need to draft jurisdictional statutes in the future.         

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether transactions conducted through entities named in 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) are protected from avoidance in bankruptcy. Petitioner Merit Management Group, LP (“Merit”) claims that Respondent FTI Consulting, Inc. (“FTI”) may not avoid the transfer because the transfers to and from Citizens Bank are protected under the safe harbor provision of § 546(e), which precludes avoidance involving certain financial institutions and markets. Respondent FTI says that Merit is wrongly applying § 546(e) to the component transfers, and that the only relevant transfer is the overall transfer, which is not protected by the safe harbor provision. If the Supreme Court allows protections that would enable creditors to undo payouts, the resulting uncertainties may lead to market destabilization; conversely, the removal of such protections may enable the exploitation of intermediaries as a channel for prohibited transactions. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Carlos Manuel Ayestas brought a state habeas petition after he was sentenced to death in Texas for murder. After the state denied his petition in 2008, Ayestas petitioned for federal habeas relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. Ayestas requested funding for “investigative, expert, or other services” under 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) to help support his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Ayestas’s claim and denied his § 3599(f) motion, finding that he had not demonstrated a “substantial need” for investigative assistance. Ayestas now challenges this substantial need test on appeal, arguing that it is inconsistent with the text, history, and purpose of § 3599(f). The Director of the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Lorie Davis, on the other hand, argues the test is proper in light of the requirements of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. This case will allow the court to determine the appropriate statutory interpretation of § 3599(f), as well as its applicability to federal habeas proceedings. The case could have significant consequences for the resources available to capital defendants bringing ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) allows a federal court reviewing state habeas decisions to “look through” a summary decision made by a state appellate court and instead examine the last reasoned opinion of a lower state court. Petitioner Marion Wilson, the habeas petitioner, contends that the Supreme Court case Ylst v. Nunnemaker guides district courts to “look through” state appellate court summary decisions to reasoned lower state court decisions when examining a state criminal proceeding’s constitutionality. Respondent Eric Sellers, Warden of the Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Prison, argues that the later Supreme Court case of Harrington v. Richter, along with the text of § 2254, rejects Ylst’s “look through” method. This case has potential implications for federalism concerns and the structure of state habeas proceedings.

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 lower court’s determination of an individual’s non-statutory insider status during a bankruptcy proceedings should be reviewed using the de novo standard or the clearly erroneous standard. The designation of insider status matters because, under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10), an insider—both as officially defined by the statute and as defined by the more expansive case law (a non-statutory insider)— is not permitted to vote during the consideration of a debt restructuring plan, even if his debt interests are harmed by the plan. U.S. Bank National Association argues that when a party appeals its designation as a non-statutory insider, courts should apply a de novo standard of review to such analysis, because it is either a pure question of law or at least a mixed question of law and fact. In contrast, Village at Lakeridge contends that courts should apply a clear error standard to this question because it involves pure fact. U.S. Bank National Association argues that de novo review prevents forum shopping and promotes judicial uniformity. Village at Lakeridge counters that de novo review undermines judicial economy and wastes party resources. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The court will decide whether the tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d)—which addresses cases involving both federal- and state-law claims suspends the limitations period for a state-law claim while the federal claim is pending and provides an additional thirty days after the federal claim is dismissed, or whether it simply provides thirty days beyond the dismissal of the claim to re-file in state court. Stephanie Artis argues that § 1367(d) suspends the limitations period for state-law claims while the federal claims are pending and provides an additional thirty days in which to re-file after claims are dismissed. On the other hand, the District of Columbia argues that the approach taken by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which only provides an additional thirty days after a state-claim is dismissed, is the appropriate standard. This issue arises in every case in which a district court ultimately declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, the case will impact the way in which plaintiffs bring state-law claims in federal courts. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The issue in this case involves whether Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C) is a jurisdictional rule or a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. Hamer argues that the Rule is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule because it has no statutory basis, while Neighborhood Housing Services argues that the Rule is a jurisdictional rule because it prescribes the types of cases over which a court has adjudicatory authority and has a statutory basis. The case is significant from a legal perspective because it will determine whether a violation of Rule 4(a)(5)(C) strips a court of appeals of its jurisdiction to hear a case on the merits, or whether the court may still consider the case on the merits based on equitable considerations or if a party waived or forfeited its right to seek dismissal under the Rule. From a policy perspective, this case is significant because its outcome will affect the judicial system’s interest in finality and because a decision affirming the Seventh Circuit would caution against relying on the legal accuracy of orders from district court judges regarding appeals. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to review whether the Clean Water Act grants broad original and exclusive jurisdiction to the United States Courts of Appeals. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agency actions are judicially reviewable by the federal district courts unless otherwise provided by congressional statute. One such provision—Section 1369(b) of the Clean Water Act—enumerates classes of agency actions that are originally and exclusively reviewable by the Courts of Appeals. In June 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency jointly adopted a new rule redefining the phrase “waters of the United States.” The National Association of Manufacturers argues that challenges to this rule fall outside of the classes enumerated in Section 1369(b) and thus are not directly reviewable by the Courts of Appeals. The Department of Defense and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on the other hand, argue that Section 1369(b) should be read broadly and functionally as to include the rule. The outcome of this case will implicate judicial efficiency and thoroughness concerns.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Under the Alien Tort Statute (“ATS”), foreign victims of torts that violate international law may sue foreign perpetrators in United States courts if the case touches and concerns the United States. The Court must now determine whether the ATS contemplates suits against foreign corporations. Jesner et al.––survivors of terrorist attacks in the Middle East and the families of such victims––allege that Arab Bank (“the Bank”), headquartered in Jordan, financed terrorist organizations through its New York branch, and should therefore be within the purview of the ATS. The Bank denies these allegations, and maintains that, because corporate liability is not a universal international norm, United States courts do not have jurisdiction over foreign corporations under the ATS. Jesner argues that denying corporate liability will eliminate a significant deterrent against terrorism financing and create international discord, while the Bank counters that corporate liability would actually hinder counterterrorism efforts and damage the United States’ alliance with Jordan. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources