Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 exhaustion requirement applies when a party brings a suit under the American with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act if the plaintiff is seeking a remedy not contemplated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The parties disagree on how to interpret Section 1415(l) of the IDEA and whether the IDEA is even implicated here. Stacy and Brent Fry posit that the plain text and purpose of the IDEA make it so monetary damages are not recoverable under the IDEA and thus neither exhaustion nor the IDEA should apply here. In response, Napoleon Community Schools et al. argues that the text and purpose of the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement require that substantively-the-same claims be exhausted before going to court. Depending on the how the Court rules, the ease of access to courts could be altered, thus impacting the role of school-related administrative proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to decide whether an appellant must file a separate appeal if he wishes to challenge a restitution award that was determined after he appealed the original judgment. Manrique argues that an appeal of an original judgment should “mature” to perfect an appeal of the amended judgment. See Brief of Petitioner, Marcelo Manrique at 22. He claims that such a process would be practical and would conform to the rules of process governing criminal appeals. See id. The United States, on the other hand, contends that allowing the original appeal to mature would contradict the text and purpose of Rule 4(b)(2). See Brief for the United States at 17. The outcome of this case will determine how many appeals appellants must file in circumstances involving amended judgments.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

After being convicted of unlawful sexual contact and harassment, Miguel Angel Peña Rodriguez obtained juror affidavits stating that, during jury deliberations, one juror made several racially-charged comments that evidenced a personal bias against Hispanics. The court denied Peña Rodriguez’s motion for a new trial and held that the affidavits were inadmissible under Colorado’s “no impeachment” rule, Colorado Rule of Evidence 606(b). Peña Rodriguez claims that allowing the no-impeachment rule to ban evidence of racial bias violates his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. The State of Colorado contends that Rule 606(b) is constitutional because other procedures adequately protect Peña Rodriguez’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. This case allows the Supreme Court to reexamine the reach of Tanner v. United States and Warger v. Shauers, and could have significant consequences on monitoring the effects of racial bias throughout the trial process.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether the damages awarded in the case of design patent infringement should be calculated as the entire profits of the whole product or be limited to the profits attributable to the patent-protected component. The parties’ arguments center on divergent purposes of the controlling statute, 35 U.S.C. § 289, as well as the meaning of “article of manufacture” as it is used within § 289. Apple, pointing to the plain language, congressional intent, and policy implications, argues that the purpose of § 289 was to overturn judicial precedent and allow a design patent owner to recover damages when only a component of a device infringes the design patent. Samsung, however, argues that Apple’s reading is too broad and cuts against congressional intent because it will result in illogical outcomes and remove centuries-old judicial precedent. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, this case will impact research and development funding and potentially create a new avenue of patent trolling. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case will address a circuit split between the Seventh Circuit and nine other circuits concerning a individual’s ability to file a malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for an alleged infringement on that individual’s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures or an infringement of an individual’s due process rights. On April 10, 2013, Elijah Manuel sued the city of Joliet, Illinois for injuries suffered as a result of a forty-seven day detention following his unlawful arrest on March 18, 2011. Manuel emphasizes that the Seventh Circuit is alone in explicitly barring malicious prosecution claims under the Fourth Amendment and therefore its lower court holding should be overturned. The City of Joliet advocates for continued adherence to the Seventh Circuit’s precedent, which rejects the contention that legal process extends to claims of malicious prosecution, and also contends that Manuel’s claims are time barred by state tort law, which provides adequate remedy for alleged due process violations. Manuel argues that his malicious prosecution claim is a Fourth Amendment claim and falls within the purview of federal and not state law. The case will impact the availability of recovery for post-process detentions as well as the applicability of state restrictions on §1983 claims.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case addresses the correct standard to be applied in granting a Certificate of Appealability
(“COA”) on a motion to reopen a judgment. As per the standard, Petitioner Duane Buck argues that he deserved a COA, as a reasonable juror could consider his ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be valid, as well as debate the validity of the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion. In opposition, Respondent Lorie Davis, Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, contends that Buck’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was meritless and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. This case will settle the correct standard for granting a COA, while also addressing issues of implicit racial biases against African American defendants. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will determine whether a close family relationship between the insider and tippee shows “personal benefit” necessary to establish insider trading. Petitioner Bassam Salman argues that a casual or social friendship does not prove personal benefit but, rather, proof of personal benefit requires a showing of monetary gain by the tipper. The United States contends that a tipper personally benefits by giving a gift of information to a family member or friend, rendering proof of monetary gain by the tipper unnecessary. The United States maintains that a tipper breaches his fiduciary duty to shareholders whenever he discloses non-public corporate information for non-corporate purposes. The Court’s decision in this case may have a substantial impact on the scope of SEC’s authority to enforce securities-fraud laws in case of tipping and consequently influence investors’ interests and their confidence in securities markets. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case presents the Supreme Court with an opportunity to decide whether the plain language of the federal bank fraud statute requires proof of, in addition to intent to deceive a financial institution, a specific intent to target the financial institution’s property. See Brief for Petitioner, Lawrence Eugene Shaw at 15. The case arises out of Lawrence Eugene Shaw’s conviction of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(1), after Shaw withdrew funds from a Taiwanese businessman’s Bank of America account, albeit without any harm to Bank of America. See United States v. Shaw, 781 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2015). Shaw argues the plain language of § 1344(1) requires proof of intent to deprive that institution of its own property. See Brief for Petitioner at 15. The government responds that because the Congressional intent behind the statute was to target all forms of bank fraud, the statute must be interpreted broadly: without concern for schemers’ mental states as to whose property they sought to defraud. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 44–45. Potentially at stake is the balance between federal and state police power, with federal police power increasing the broader the Supreme Court interprets a statute. See Brief for Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers ("NACDL"), in Support of Petitioner at 5.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martínez-Maldonado were involved in a federal program bribery scheme in which Bravo allegedly paid for Martinez’s trip to Las Vegas to attend a boxing match in exchange for Martínez pushing through beneficial legislation for Bravo’s private security company. A jury convicted both defendants of committing federal bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666 but acquitted them of other bribery-related charges.  The convictions were later vacated due to a jury instruction error, and Bravo and Martínez were acquitted on remand.  Bravo and Martínez argue that the jury acquittals retain preclusive effect under the Double Jeopardy Clause despite the fact that jury had originally returned inconsistent verdicts. The government counters that because the jury’s inconsistent verdicts do not allow Bravo and Martínez to show that the jury had decided in their favor, collateral estoppel does not apply. The outcome of this case could potentially affect prosecutorial theories and could disadvantage criminal defendants who face various predicate and conspiracy charges. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

And then the executive summary goes here...

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties