Issues

At issue in this case is whether employment contracts barring employees from collectively arbitrating disputes with employers are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Employees argue that preventing collective arbitration interferes with the NLRA’s Section 7 protections of “concerted activity” for “mutual aid and protection”. Employers counter that the Federal Arbitration Act governs the arbitration agreements, under which they are enforceable. Employers also contend that enforcing the agreements protects freedom of contract, thus promoting efficiency and protecting judicial resources. Employees respond that collective arbitration allows them to share the costs and risks of litigation, thereby allowing them to pursue claims that, in the aggregate, may reveal abusive practices by employers. One on hand, freedom of contract in the interest of judicial economy may be harmed if the Court does not uphold the validity of the waivers. On the other hand, if the Court does uphold the validity of the waivers, it will may become more difficult for employees to challenge abusive work practices in their workplaces.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case presents the Supreme Court the opportunity to determine how to construe the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”). Specifically, this case focuses on the notice requirements of the BPCIA and asks whether notice of marketing a biosimilar must be provided 180 days after the approval of the biosimilar but before the marketing of the product. In addition, if the Court determines that notice is required after approval, but before marketing, the Court must decide what remedies are proper to correct the improper notice. Pointing to the BPCIA’s purpose, Sandoz Inc. argues that notice is only required 180 days before marketing; and, that injunctions are improper remedies to correct any potential notice-fault. In contrast, Amgen Inc. also points to the BPCIA’s purpose to argue that notice can only be effective if made after FDA approval; and, that the only way to provide a meaningful remedy would be to allow an injunction. Depending on the Court’s holding, this case could impact the balance between innovation and affordability in the biologics market.        

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Divna Maslenjak and her family immigrated to the United States as refugees in the aftermath of the Bosnian War, claiming they feared persecution because Maslenjak’s husband had avoided military conscription during the war. Maslenjak became a United States citizen in 2009, indicating on her application that she had never lied to immigration officials. United States officials, however, discovered that Maslenjak’s husband served as an officer in the Serbian Bratunac Brigade at the time the unit committed war crimes in the Bosnian War. Maslenjak was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1425(a) with “knowingly procuring” her citizenship “contrary to law” due to her misrepresentations of her husband’s military service on her family’s refugee application. Maslenjak argues that materiality is a required element of § 1425(a), and therefore the government must prove that the false statement influenced the decision to approve the citizenship application. The United States argues that § 1425(a) only requires knowledge of the underlying offense, here making a false statement to a government official, and does not require proof of materiality. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine the circumstances under which naturalized citizens can be denaturalized and the government’s burden of proof in denaturalization proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Petitioner Kelli Tyrrell (“Tyrrell”) sued BNSF Railway Company (“BNSF”) in Montana state court, alleging violations of the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (“FELA”) for the injuries Brent Tyrrell sustained while working at BNSF. Robert Nelson also sued BNSF in Montana for FELA violations for the knee injuries he experienced while under BNSF’s employ. The Supreme Court consolidated Tyrrell’s and Nelson’s FELA claims. BNSF argues that Montana courts do not have personal jurisdiction over these claims because BNSF is not incorporated in Montana, Montana is not BNSF’s principal place of business, the petitioners are not Montana residents, and the claims did not arise in Montana. Tyrrell and Nelson counter that state courts have the authority to exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations in federal claims, like FELA, when the state law permits such a claim. This case allows the Supreme Court to define the boundaries of state courts’ personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants in federal claims. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether courts have specific jurisdiction over defendants only when the case arises out of conduct that is causally connected to a defendant’s in-state conduct. The case comes before the Supreme Court after Bristol-Myers Squibb was sued in California for manufacturing a defective anticoagulant, despite having manufactured the anticoagulant in New Jersey and having only a transient connection with California. Bristol-Myers Squibb argues that the California court lacks power to adjudicate this case, because the company’s conduct in California is not causally connected to the plaintiffs’ injuries. California Superior Court, on the other hand, argues that specific jurisdiction does not require proof of causation. Much is at stake in this action: some assert that California’s victory would result in gross injustice to defendants; others claim that BMS’s victory would cause judicial resources to be squandered with duplicative litigation.

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 determine whether the Martinez ruling, which held that ineffective assistance of counsel in a state habeas proceeding could provide cause to excuse the procedural default of a claim for ineffective assistance of trial counsel, extends to excuse the procedural default of a claim for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. Davila argues that Martinez does so extend, since the Court’s reasoning in Martinez applies equally to claims for ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and the practical consequences of extending Martinez would be limited. The state of Texas argues that the Court should refuse to extend Martinez, since the right to appellate counsel is not as vital as the right to trial counsel and allowing so-called “Davila” claims would unduly burden the court system.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part, that a person standing criminal trial has the right to the assistance of an attorney for his defense. In Ake v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court interpreted that portion of the Sixth Amendment to mean that a defendant also has the right to an expert “to assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” It is not clear, however, whether a defendant’s right to such an expert entitles him to an independent expert, devoted to advocating specifically for the defense’s case. McWilliams argues that the Sixth Amendment does guarantee an independent expert for the defense of the accused. The State of Alabama, on the other hand, argues that a defendant need only have access to an expert, which may be satisfied through the assistance of an expert neutral to all parties. The outcome of this case will help to further define the scope of protection afforded by the Sixth Amendment regarding a defendant’s right to counsel. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case will address the burden on the defendant who is asserting an ineffective assistance of counsel claim upon appeal. Kentel Myrone Weaver argues that proving that his counsel failed to object to a courtroom closure during the jury selection proceedings with no strategic considerations should merit a dismissal of the underlying conviction. The state of Massachusetts maintains that this was a harmless error and therefore the conviction should stand. The Supreme Court’s decision will have implications for the scope of protections for the right to effective assistance of counsel.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether the Free Exercise or Equal Protection Clause requires Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources to grant a qualifying religious institution’s funding application if it would have otherwise received funding absent its religious status. Trinity Lutheran Church argues that the Department’s policy amounts to a violation of the Free Exercise Clause because it singles out and excludes religious institutions by conditioning a generally available public benefit based on religious status. Moreover, Trinity contends that the policy violates the Equal Protection Clause because the policy employs a suspect classification based on religion. In contrast, The Missouri DNR argues that the Free Exercise Clause only stops the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion but does not require that the government provide funding to religious organizations. Secondly, it argues that the State’s policy only needs to meet a rational basis level of scrutiny, as all religious groups do not constitute, in themselves, a suspect classification. Furthermore, the DNR contends that the State’s policy serves legitimate, rational bases, such as a protection against perceived or actual governmental favoritism toward particular religious denominations. At stake are the governmental benefits available to religious organizations in a wide range of contexts and the potential for organizational discrimination against third parties.

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 an entity that attempts to collect from defaulted loans is a “debt collector” as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). This definition includes two prongs, and Petitioners Henson, et al. argue that in the second prong, “owed or due another” should be read as debts owed to the originator but due to the debt purchaser. See Brief for Petitioners, Ricky Henson, et al. at 19–20. Since the debt that Respondent Santander tried to collect was due to Santander, who is the purchaser of the debt, Petitioners argue that Santander was a debt collector under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and can therefore be held liable under the Fair Debt Collection Practice Act (FDCPA). See id. at 23. Moreover, they maintain that the Fourth Circuit’s contrary interpretation may encourage the debt industry to engage in practices like loan diversification to avoid regulation and liability under the FDCPA. See id. at 20–21. On the other hand, Santander contends that a number of textual cues in the statute, such as the grammar and repeated use of present tense, demonstrate that “owed or due another” regards the time of collection, which releases Santander of liability because during the period of collection Santander was not collecting on behalf of another entity. See Brief for Respondent, Santander Consumer USA, Inc. at 11. Moreover, Santander argues that most of the abusive practices that could be exempted from the FDCPA may be regulated by another statute. See id. at 14. At stake are the extent of legal accountability for debt purchasers and the incentives for purchasing debt. See Brief of Amici Curiae Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization et al. (“LSO”), in Support of Petitioner at 7; Brief of Amicus Curiae ACA International, in Support of Respondent at 17–18.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources