Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) provides federal courts with exclusive jurisdiction over state law claims based on violations of the Exchange Act or whether state courts are permitted to hear such state law claims. See Brief for Petitioner, Merrill Lynch, et al. at i. Merrill Lynch argues that Manning relies on Regulation SHO, a federal regulation, and therefore federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction under the Exchange Act. See id. at 19. On the other hand, Manning argues that, because his claims are based on state law, state courts have jurisdiction over this case, even if some elements of his claim rely on federal law. See Brief for Respondent, Greg Manning, et al. at 25. Ultimately, the Court’s decision has the potential to affect whether uniformity in decision-making is necessary to enforce Regulation SHO and whether state courts can govern duties arising under federal regulations. See Brief of Amicus Curiae The Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, in Support of Petitioner at 8–9.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Jefferson County Public School District in Jefferson County, Kentucky, requires that 15 to 50 percent of all students in each school be African-American. Petitioner Crystal Meredith claims that the district violated the Fourteenth Amendment when it rejected her application to enroll her son at a nearby school on the basis of race. To decide this case, the Supreme Court will have to determine whether racial diversity in K–12 public education is a compelling state interest and whether the district’s racial range mandate is narrowly tailored to further that interest. The decision will determine the extent to which schools are permitted to consider race in school assignment policies.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(b), a plaintiff must file a claim alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 no later than two years after the plaintiff discovers the facts constituting the violation.  The Courts of Appeals are in general agreement that the two-year period of limitations begins when the plaintiff had, or should have had knowledge of the facts constituting the violation.  What is at issue in this case is whether knowledge that defendant acted with the intent to deceive is a fact constituting the violation for purposes of triggering the two-year period of limitation.  The Supreme Court’s decision will resolve this question of statutory interpretation and, in so doing, will determine the delicate balance between allowing plaintiffs with meritorious claims access to the federal courts and providing certainty and repose to potential securities fraud defendants.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied the Court’s decision in Holland v. Florida when the D.C. Circuit ruled that the statute of limitations was not subject to equitable tolling for the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s (“the Tribe”) 1996–1998 claims for contract support costs. See Brief for Respondent at i. The Tribe argues that despite the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the Holland standard for equitable tolling as rigid and mechanical, the Holland standard should instead conform to the Federal Circuit standard, which is a comprehensive and unified analysis that also follows the proper interpretation of Holland. See Brief for Petitioner at 5–6. In contrast, the United States argues that the elements within a comprehensive analysis do not provide an independent basis for equitable  tolling,  and that equitable tolling should not excuse the Tribe’s miscalculations and legal misunderstandings. See Brief for Respondent at 21–22, 48.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied the Court’s decision in Holland v. Florida when the D.C. Circuit ruled that the statute of limitations was not subject to equitable tolling for the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin’s (“the Tribe”) 1996–1998 claims for contract support costs. See Brief for Respondent at i. The Tribe argues that despite the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation of the Holland standard for equitable tolling as rigid and mechanical, the Holland standard should instead conform to the Federal Circuit standard, which is a comprehensive and unified analysis that also follows the proper interpretation of Holland. See Brief for Petitioner at 5–6. In contrast, the United States argues that the elements within a comprehensive analysis do not provide an independent basis for equitable  tolling,  and that equitable tolling should not excuse the Tribe’s miscalculations and legal misunderstandings. See Brief for Respondent at 21–22, 48.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

A declaratory judgment suit is one in which the plaintiff’s requested relief from the court is a statement of the parties’ rights. In a declaratory judgment action, an “actual controversy” must exist between the parties in order for a court to declare the rights and legal relations of the interested parties. MedImmune v. Genentech asks the Supreme Court to consider what defines an “actual controversy” as applied to suits challenging the validity of patents. Specifically, the Court will decide whether it is necessary for a patent licensee to breach the terms of a patent in order to bring suit against the patent owner. The Court’s  decision in this case  has the potential to shift the balance of power between patent holders and licensees.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

When the Annapolis Police arrested Leeander Blake, he invoked his right to remain silent until granted access to an attorney. While Blake was still in custody, and after Blake had invoked his right to remain silent, an officer made an inappropriate remark to him. However, the officer leading the investigation swiftly rebuked this officer, in front of Blake, for his remark. Shortly thereafter, Blake made incriminating statements without an attorney that the State sought to use against him. Under Edwards v. Arizona, a suspect who has invoked his right to remain silent cannot later waive that right unless he initiates the conversation and does so knowingly and intelligently. The Court must decide whether the supervising officer's curative remarks in this case sufficiently restored Blake's rights prior to Blake's incriminating statements.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, a hair's breadth of analytical difference is worth almost $6 million dollars, as the plaintiffs, former employees at Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory ("KAPL") ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Second Circuit's finding for the defendants. The plaintiffs had prevailed at trial and on appeal on a disparate impact theory of illegal age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the "ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., when the Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of Smith v. City of Jackson. While upholding the disparate impact theory, City of Jackson also requires the touchstone of the analysis to be whether employers considered "reasonable factors other than age," which the Second Circuit determined was a burden of persuasion to be borne by the plaintiffs. The employee-plaintiffs disagree, maintaining that the "reasonable factors other than age" harbor in the ADEA statute is a traditional affirmative defense on which the employer-defendants bear the burden of proof. In determining where the burden rests, the Supreme Court's decision will impact the nature of future employee litigation under the ADEA, shape the strategies for a successful reduction in force, and determine what deference is due the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's regulations interpreting the ADEA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2009, Petitioner Clifton Terelle McNeill was convicted and sentenced for the possession with intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine and for the possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The district court determined that McNeill qualified for a sentencing enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCA") because of his two prior convictions for common law robbery and felony assault, as well as six convictions for selling cocaine and possession of cocaine. The ACCA applies to “serious drug offenses,” which are defined as crimes that carry a maximum imprisonment term of at least ten years. McNeill argues that the ACCA did not apply because, although his drug offenses did carry a maximum of at least ten years when they were committed, North Carolina had since lowered its drug sentences by the time of his current sentencing. Conversely, the United States insists that because North Carolina decided not to make its drug sentencing change retroactive, the ACCA does in fact apply to McNeill.

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 “official action” is limited to exercise of actual government power. In light of this determination, the court will then decide whether the honest-services statute and Hobbs Act sufficiently define official actions to comply with the Constitution. Robert McDonnell argues that official actions should be limited to the actual exercise of government power and that his conduct as governor was never an exercise of actual government power. Thus, McDonnell argues that his conviction should be overturned on the merits, but he also argues that the trial court’s jury instructions were erroneous based on a flawed definition of “official action” given to the jury. In addition, McDonnell argues that the honest-services statute and Hobbs Act are unconstitutionally vague. The United States argues that McDonnell construes the definition of official action too  narrowly,  and that a proper interpretation encompasses McDonnell's conduct in this case.  United States  rejects McDonnell’s jury instruction arguments based by noting that these instructions included a precise definition of “official action” from the statute, with additional information to clarify the definition. Finally, the United States rejects McDonnell’s constitutional challenges by citing a recent and similar Supreme Court challenge to these statutes that failed. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources