Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the language of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and § 924(j) allow for cumulative punishments for a singular criminal act that violates both provisions of this statute. Sections 924(c) and (j) punish the use of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime or drug trafficking. Dwayne Barrett contends that § 924(c) and (j) are not separate crimes because they punish the same underlying singular act, and Congress has authorized cumulative sentences for the same act. Charles L. McCloud, as court-appointed amicus curiae, argues that § 924(c) and (j) are two separate crimes, and Congress intended to allow for cumulative punishments for a single act that violates both statutes. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case raises concerns regarding the justice of sentencing to punish multiple violations involving a singular act and the duties of the legislative and judicial branches in determining the scope of criminal punishment. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s (“FTCA”) postal exception covers intentional failure to deliver mail. The FTCA prohibits tort claims against the government that arise out of the “the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission” of the mail. The United States Postal Service and the United States of America (collectively “USPS”) argue that the Court should adopt a broad reading of the statute’s language. USPS argues that intentional torts for withholding mail fit into the meanings of the words “miscarriage” or “loss.” Lebene Konan argues that such a broad reading would render the statute superfluous and depart from the ordinary meanings of “loss” and “miscarriage.” The outcome of this case could impact the USPS’s efficiency, and it will determine whether there is a legal remedy available for people harmed by a postal employee’s intentional tort. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a trial court may bar defense counsel from discussing a defendant’s ongoing testimony during an overnight recess. Villarreal argues that this restriction violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the attorney-client privilege. Texas counters that the restriction is a qualified order that does not infringe on constitutionally protected communications. The outcome of this case has profound implications for the fairness of trials and defendants’ testimony. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (“MCTL”), which prohibits mental health professionals from providing LGBTQ+ conversion therapy to minor clients, violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Kaley Chiles, a licensed professional counselor in Colorado, argues that MCTL infringes on constitutionally protected speech by discriminating against certain content and viewpoints. She asserts that Colorado failed to meet its burden of strict scrutiny because the statute does not further a compelling state interest, nor is it narrowly tailored. Patty Salazar, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, argues that states have the power to regulate professional conduct, even if doing so incidentally affects speech. Salazar maintains that Chiles’s position undermines a state’s ability to regulate the conduct of mental health professionals. The outcome of this case will also have significant ramifications for the availability of certain treatment methods.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether federal political candidates generally, and Michael Bost specifically, have Article III standing to challenge state election laws. In particular, the parties are asking the Court to identify the appropriate legal standard to establish Article III standing with respect to political candidates. Petitioners, Michael Bost, et al. (“Bost”), argue that political candidates meet the injury in fact requirement of standing because candidates are harmed by the possibility of losing an election, by their participation in an illegitimate election, and by the divergence of funds used to maintain an extended campaign. Respondents, the Illinois State Board of Elections, et al. (“Illinois”), counter that candidates cannot meet this requirement by simply asserting a risk of losing an election but instead must provide evidence that the risk of individual harm is substantial. A decision in favor of Bost would likely reduce standing requirements for political candidates, making it likely that more candidates will bring lawsuits challenging election laws. A decision for Illinois would make it more difficult for political candidates to bring suit, and if evidence of changed election outcomes is required, litigation surrounding election laws may be pushed until after elections take place, leading to uncertain and even overturned election results. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources