Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump

Issues

Does the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorize the President to impose tariffs?

 

This case asks whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) authorizes the president to impose tariffs in an emergency. Learning Resources contends that the IEEPA does not give the president tariff authority, and—even if it does—does not grant the broad authority the President claims. President Trump argues that a plain-meaning interpretation of the IEEPA grants tariff authority, and the IEEPA does not limit the scope of the tariff power because the limitation is not expressly listed as other limitations are. This case raises significant issues about the separation of powers and future of foreign relations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs. 

The 1917 Trading with the Enemy Act (“TWEA”) granted the United States President the power to restrict trade with certain foreign countries during wartimes. Brief for Respondent, Donald J.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Hencely v. Fluor Corporation

Issues

Can state-law tort claims be brought against an otherwise-immune federal military contractor where that contractor’s conduct breached its contract with the military and violated military orders?

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a federal military contractor can be sued on state-law tort claims provided that the contractor breached its contract and violated military orders. Winston Hencely, a veteran who was injured in a suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan, argues that Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation, which created federal military contractor immunity, does not apply in such circumstances, and that Boyle’s reasoning should not be extended to apply in such circumstances. Fluor Corporation counters that the federal interests at stake in bold military operations require broad immunity for military contractors. The outcome of this case will determine the scope of military contractors’ liability and the Supreme Court’s willingness to rely upon and expand doctrines made by courts rather than Congress. This case will also impact future military safety and defense contracting.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corporation should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.

Winston T. Hencely, the Petitioner, was an active-duty soldier stationed at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. Hencely v. Fluor Corp.

Submit for publication
0

Coney Island Auto Parts, Inc. v. Burton

Issues

Does Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) create any time limit to dismiss a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction?

 

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) may impose a time limit on motions to set aside a default judgment that is void for lack of personal jurisdiction. Petitioner Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. (“Coney Island”) contends that Rule 60(c)(1) was intended to govern only voidable judgments, not those that were void from the beginning of the judgment, or ab initio. Coney Island argues that enforcing a judgment void from the outset from lack of personal jurisdiction necessarily violates the fundamental principles of due process, as no court lacking jurisdiction ever has lawful authority to adjudicate a defendant’s rights. Respondent, Trustee for Vista-Pro Automotive, Jeanne Ann Burton (“Burton”), maintains that the drafters of Rule 60(c)(1) intended the rule to apply to all void judgments regardless of whether they were void for lack of personal jurisdiction. Burton argues that even if the rule is enforced, defendants still have avenues to raise the fact that their original judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction through other procedural means if the judgment is referenced later on. Additionally, Burton argues that the reasonable-time restriction in Rule 60(b)(4) correctly balances the public policy goals. Burton states that the Rule encourages finality in judgments to prevent excess litigation while also allowing for defendants to bring motions, within reasonable limits, when they believe their rights are being violated by the enforcement of a judgment lacking personal jurisdiction. The outcome of this case has implications for the behavior of parties in a suit and the fairness of notice requirements.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)(4) permits substantive relief from a judgment that is void, including when a court rules it lacked personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Kevin Clermont for his guidance and insights into this case. 

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

cannabis

Cannabis is statutorily synonymous to marijuana. Cannabis is broadly categorized into two principal subspecies: cannabis sativa and cannabis indica. Cannabis plants have trichomes, which are hair-like structures on the surface of flowers and leaves; these trichomes contain cannabinoids such as cannabidiol (CBD) and tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

Pueblo v. Haas (Michigan 2023)

In Pueblo v. Haas, 511 Mich. 345, 999 N.W.2d 433 (2023), the parties were in a long-term same-sex relationship that began before marriage equality was recognized in Michigan. The couple used in vitro fertilization to conceive a child, with the defendant serving as the biological parent listed on the birth certificate. After their relationship ended, the plaintiff sought joint custody and parenting time based on her parental role, despite lacking a biological or adoptive connection to the child.

People v. Warner (Michigan 2024)

In People v. Warner, 514 Mich. 41, 22 N.W.3d 1 (2024), the defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct against his minor stepdaughter. He was interrogated by law enforcement three times, initially maintaining his innocence before signing a confession prepared by the police. At trial, the defense requested public funds to hire an expert witness on false confessions to challenge the reliability of the confession. The trial court denied the request, and the Eaton Circuit Court affirmed the conviction on appeal.

Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (Michigan, as amended)

The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act declares that the opportunity to obtain employment, housing, education, and the full use of public accommodations is a civil right. The Act prohibits discrimination in these areas based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, height, weight, familial status, or marital status. It further provides protections against retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices or participating in related proceedings.

Human Trafficking Notification Act of 2016 (Michigan)

The Human Trafficking Notification Act of 2016 requires specific public and private entities to display a conspicuous human trafficking notice in locations accessible to the public. Entities subject to the law include: the Department of Transportation, local units of government that operate rest stops, welcome centers, or public bus or rail services, all adult entertainment establishments, public airports, and owners of property that a court has determined constitutes a public nuisance due to acts of prostitution or human trafficking occurring on or connected to the premises.

Subscribe to