Issues

Carloyn Muncey was murdered on July 13, 1985 in Union County, Tennessee. Her badly beaten body was found the next day in a brush pile about one hundred yards from her house, and it appeared as though a strong blow to her head had killed her after a long struggle. That same day, two witnesses saw Paul House emerging from the area where Muncey’s body was discovered wiping his hands with a dark rag. Several witnesses, as well as House, gave conflicting statements as to where he was the night of the crime. Over the course of the investigation of the murder, FBI officials found blood on House’s jeans that they determined was Muncey’s blood, as well as semen on Muncey’s clothes that they determined was likely House’s. Based on this circumstantial evidence, a jury in Union County convicted House of first-degree murder and sentenced him to the death penalty based on three aggravating circumstances. During post-conviction relief proceedings in state and federal courts, House presented evidence that he was actually innocent of the crime. This new evidence included a confession from Muncey’s husband that he had murdered her, DNA evidence that it was not House’s semen on Muncey’s clothes, and evidence that the blood on his jeans was spilled onto his jeans after the autopsy on Muncey. None of the courts reviewing House’s case found his evidence sufficient to establish his actual innocence, however, and did not allow for review of his procedurally defaulted claims, such as ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, or to obtain relief from his conviction. The United States Supreme Court must now determine how much evidence an individual such as House must present to prove his actual innocence and overturn a jury’s conviction and death sentence, as well as how much evidence is necessary to establish House’s innocence so that a court can review his procedurally defaulted claims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

Respondent Cheryl Perich taught for five years at Petitioner, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School (“Hosanna-Tabor”), including four years as a commissioned minister. In 2004, Hosanna-Tabor hired a new teacher to fill Perich’s position after Perich missed several months of teaching due to narcolepsy. When Hosanna-Tabor did not permit Perich to return to her former position, Perich threatened to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Hosanna-Tabor fired Perich, and Perich initiated legal proceedings with the Respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that Hosanna-Tabor fired her in retaliation for threatening to sue. Hosanna-Tabor argues that the ministerial exception to the ADA, which prevents employment suits against religious entities by their religious employees, bars Perich's lawsuit because she fulfilled an important religious role. Perich and the EEOC contend that there is no ministerial exception under the anti-retaliation provisions of the  ADA,  and that the Establishment Clause, freedom of association principles, and Free Exercise Clause do not bar her suit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that Perich did not fall under the ministerial exception because she taught secular subjects with minimal religious components. The Supreme Court will decide whether the ministerial exception applies to a teacher at a religious school who teaches both secular and religious material.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2002, Lester Gerard Packingham pled guilty to taking indecent liberties with a child and was registered as a sex offender in the state of North Carolina. After posting on Facebook in 2010, Packingham was arrested and convicted under a North Carolina statute that prohibits all registered sex offenders from accessing any social networking website. Packingham appealed, arguing that the law violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed Packingham’s conviction, finding that the law was an acceptable content-neutral speech restriction. Packingham argues that the law is substantially overbroad and is therefore unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to this case under either strict or intermediate scrutiny. North Carolina maintains that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s interest in protecting children from sexual abuse and therefore satisfies intermediate scrutiny. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact the balance between state governments’ interest in public safety and convicted persons’ First Amendment rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether a conviction under a California criminal statute prohibiting unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor categorically constitutes “aggravated felony” under a federal statute prohibiting “sexual abuse of a minor”—a violation that would provide a legal basis for deportation of a noncitizen. Juan Esquivel-Quintana argues that his conviction does not meet the federal definition if the lowest qualifying conduct under the state statute does not necessarily constitute a crime under the federal statute. He argues that federal law, the Model Penal Code, and the criminal laws of forty-three states affirm that his conduct is not convictable under the federal statute and thus fails categorically. Moreover, he argues that the Court should not defer to the Board’s determination that ‘minor’ under the federal statute means anyone under eighteen years of age because, among other reasons, it impermissibly relies on non-criminal law guidance. In rebuttal, Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch argues that a plain-language interpretation of the California statute is sufficient to resolve the issue against Esquivel-Quintana and that a multi-jurisdictional analysis is unnecessary in light of the plain language. If, however, the Court determines there to be ambiguities, Lynch asserts that the Board’s determination is reasonable and should be offered deference by the Court. This case may have policy implications regarding separation of powers and fair notice concerns.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide the scope of a trial court’s discretion in considering the mandatory consecutive sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (mandating a minimum sentence if a firearm is used in furtherance of a violent crime) when determining a sentence for the predicate offense. In deciding whether the lower courts erred by not further reducing the petitioner’s sentence for his predicate offense, the Court will look at whether United States v. Pepper (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3661 implied that a sentencing court should consider all relevant information about a defendant when determining an appropriate sentence) overruled United States v. Hatcher (holding that a trial court could not impose a mere one-day sentence for crimes that were not subject to a mandatory minimum just because the § 924(c)-mandated sentence had been 300 months). Petitioner Levon Dean, Jr. argues that trial courts should be given full discretion to consider all possible information and that Congressional support of a shorter sentence is evinced by the text of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1986. The United States, as respondent, counters that the Sentencing Reform Act cannot be used simply to lower the aggregate sentence and that Congress specifically intended to prohibit lighter sentences because of the unique dangers of a § 924(c) violation. If the Court rules that Pepper overruled Hatcher, this will give trial courts more discretion in fashioning shorter aggregate sentences for defendants who used a firearm in furtherance of a violent crime.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether § 8902(m)(1) of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (“FEHBA”) allows insurance companies to collect reimbursements from the insured after personal injury claims or whether a “presumption against preemption” allows state anti-subrogation laws to prevail.  Petitioner Coventry Health of Missouri, Inc. argues that FEHBA unambiguously preempts state anti-subrogation laws; preemption comports with the Supremacy Clause; and the Office of Personnel Management’s new final rule, codified in § 8902(m)(1), should be granted Chevron deference. In contrast, Respondent Jodie Nevils argues that FEHBA’s language is ambiguous; Chevron deference does not apply; and allowing preemption of state anti-subrogation law violates the Supremacy Clause by encroaching on law traditionally left to the states to regulate. This case will clarify the potential for state anti-subrogation law preemption to influence the cost of health care coverage for FEHBA plan enrollees and will address federalism concerns regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states for the administration and provision of health insurance to federal employees. 

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 the Constitution allows parents of a Mexican citizen with no significant ties to the United States to sue a U.S. Border Patrol Agent who shot and killed their son on the Mexican side of the culvert separating the two countries while the agent was standing in the United States. The parents of the deceased teen argue that the Court should extend extraterritorial jurisdiction for practical reasons, that the border patrol agent should not be shielded by qualified immunity because he did not know the facts necessary to justify his force at the time he used it, and that the Court should allow them to bring a Bivens claim because it is the only available remedy. The border patrol agent counters that the Court should not extend jurisdiction to an area not under U.S. control, that he should be shielded by qualified immunity because a reasonable officer in his circumstances could have inferred the facts necessary to justify his use of force, and that the family is not entitled to bring a Bivens claim because the rights they claim were not clearly established at the time he acted. To the parents, defeat would foreclose any possibility to recover; to the Government, defeat would obstruct its foreign operations by implicating Fourth Amendment concerns in international security operations. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

When a federal district court makes a determination regarding whether to quash or enforce a subpoena, that decision is subject to appeal at the circuit court level. A circuit court can review a district court’s decision either deferentially or de novo. If a circuit court engages in deferential review, it will only overturn a district court’s decision if it determines that the district court abused its discretion in the matter. On the other hand, if a circuit court engages in de novo review, it will assess the factual evidence of the case and make a legal determination without regard for the findings by the court below. McLane Company, Inc. argues that a circuit court hearing an appeal from a district court’s decision to quash an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) subpoena should review the decision below deferentially. The EEOC argues, however, that a circuit court in that situation should instead review the decision de novo. The outcome of this case will impact the course of future EEOC litigation. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Court must consider whether federal law preempts state law regarding arbitration clauses in powers-of-attorneys. Kindred Nursing Centers argues that state law, which requires principals to explicitly authorize an agent to enter into arbitration agreements, violates the Federal Arbitration Act. Contrarily, Janis E. Clark and Beverly Wellner argue that state law governs contract formation and that state law requires powers-of-attorneys to adhere to the expressed intentions of the principal in a contract. The case will determine whether powers-of-attorney must explicitly grant the agent the power to bind the grantor to an arbitration agreement and may impact elder care and estate planning practices across the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Respondent Cheryl Perich taught for five years at Petitioner, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School (“Hosanna-Tabor”), including four years as a commissioned minister. In 2004, Hosanna-Tabor hired a new teacher to fill Perich’s position after Perich missed several months of teaching due to narcolepsy. When Hosanna-Tabor did not permit Perich to return to her former position, Perich threatened to sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Hosanna-Tabor fired Perich, and Perich initiated legal proceedings with the Respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that Hosanna-Tabor fired her in retaliation for threatening to sue. Hosanna-Tabor argues that the ministerial exception to the ADA, which prevents employment suits against religious entities by their religious employees, bars Perich's lawsuit because she fulfilled an important religious role. Perich and the EEOC contend that there is no ministerial exception under the anti-retaliation provisions of the ADA, and that the Establishment Clause, freedom of association principles, and Free Exercise Clause do not bar her suit. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that Perich did not fall under the ministerial exception because she taught secular subjects with minimal religious components. The Supreme Court will decide whether the ministerial exception applies to a teacher at a religious school who teaches both secular and religious material.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources