Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the government may dismiss a qui tam action over the objections of the relator when the government chooses not to proceed with the action at the outset. Jesse Polansky argues that the text, structure, history, and purpose of the False Claims Act indicate that when the government chooses not to pursue an action at the outset of a case, the relator has the exclusive right to decide whether to proceed with an action or request its dismissal. Polansky maintains that the government cannot retain its right to dismiss after it declines to proceed at the outset. Executive Health Resources, Inc. counters that the False Claims Act allows the government to dismiss a qui tam action at any time because the Constitution vests executive power in the President. Executive Health Resources contends that delegating executive power to relators, as Polansky suggests, would be unconstitutional. The case has significant policy implications because litigating qui tam actions is costly for all parties involved, and a ruling for unrestricted governmental dismissal authority could chill relators from bringing future qui tam actions, whereas a ruling for limited government dismissal authority could burden the government with meritless qui tam actions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the judicial branch has the authority to overrule a state legislature’s redistricting map. In 2021, the North Carolina Legislature created a redistricting map that the North Carolina Supreme Court subsequently struck down for violations of the North Carolina State Constitution. The Elections Clause of the United States Constitution declares that state legislatures shall determine state election laws, but it does not explicitly state whether state courts can review those laws for state constitutional violations. Moore argues that the Elections Clause grants state legislatures the sole authority to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections and, consequently, other branches are prohibited from interfering with this authority. Harper counters that Moore’s reading of the Election Clause is erroneous, as it would allow state legislature to violate their own state constitutions. The United States Supreme Court’s decision could affect voter perception of election integrity, as well as how much power state legislatures have in determining election law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a provision of federal bankruptcy law, 11 U.S.C. § 363(m), restricts the power of federal courts to review the order approving the sale of Sears’ assets. In the wake of Sears’ bankruptcy filing, Sears’ former CEO created a company, Transform HoldCo. Transform HoldCo then acquired Sears’ lease for space located in the Mall of America and subsequently assigned that lease to one of its subsidiaries with approval from the Bankruptcy Court. MOAC Mall Holdings, which owns Mall of America, challenged the assignment in federal court. Transform HoldCo contends that federal courts do not have the ability to review the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, and that regardless, the relief that MOAC seeks is unavailable because under no circumstances can MOAC retake control of the lease. MOAC contends both that the assignment decision is indeed reviewable by federal courts and also that it is entitled to relief under the relevant statutes. This case has important implications for judicial review and for the protections that mall owners and good-faith transferees have during bankruptcy proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a member of a partnership is prohibited from discharging debt fraudulently incurred by their partner without their knowledge. Kate Bartenwerfer argues that the Court cannot prohibit her from discharging debts in bankruptcy merely because those debts were obtained by her partner’s imputed fraud that she was not responsible for. Kieran Buckley counters that the Bankruptcy Code asks only whether debts were obtained by fraud and does not draw distinctions based on whether any individual debtor is responsible for that fraud. This case has implications for prioritizing relief to debtors or creditors in bankruptcy and for the liabilities of individuals in a marriage or domestic partnership.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to balance public accommodation anti-discrimination laws and First Amendment rights. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) limits a public accommodation’s ability to refuse services to a customer based on their identity, such as sexual orientation. 303 Creative LLC and its owner Lorie Smith argue that CADA violates their First Amendment rights to free artistic expression and religious belief. Respondent Aubrey Elenis, Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, counters that CADA regulates discriminatory commerce, not speech, and thus does not violate 303 Creative LLC’s First Amendment rights. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for LGBTQ+ rights, freedom of speech and religion, and creative expression.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to analyze 18 U.S.C. § 1346, the honest-services fraud statute, and determine if an individual with informal power but no official governmental position can violate the statute. Joseph Percoco and Steven Aiello argue that private individuals lacking formal governmental power cannot commit honest-services fraud because they do not owe the public a duty of honest services. Percoco and Aiello further argue that including private individuals within § 1346 would render the statue unconstitutionally vague, violate the First Amendment, and entrench upon state sovereignty. The United States contends that private individuals can commit honest-services fraud when they have been selected for public office and when they are de facto officeholders in all but name. The United States also argues that § 1346 clearly defines improper behavior and does not limit First Amendment activity. This case touches on important questions regarding lobbying, free speech, and the interaction of state and federal bribery laws.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the “right to control” theory of fraud creates a cause of action under the federal wire fraud statute. Under the “right to control” theory, the federal wire fraud statute may be used to punish schemes which intend to deprive a victim of valuable information regarding an economic decision. Ciminelli claims that the “right to control” theory improperly expands rights considered in the fraud statutes and improperly eases the government’s burden of proof. United States maintains that the “right to control” is properly limited to specifically target information deprivation schemes with tangible economic harms and that Ciminelli’s conviction holds even without the “right to control” theory. This case has significant implications for the construction industry, concerns of overcriminalization, and the limit of federal jurisdiction.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether Texas and Louisiana may sue the federal government in federal court despite not having suffered a direct injury from agency action, and whether the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) September 2021 Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (“Guidelines”) violate the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) or the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). The Court must also decide whether the INA prevents a court from vacating an administrative action under the APA. The United States claims that Texas and Louisiana cannot sue the federal government because the Constitution requires a direct harm, that the Guidelines do not violate the INA because the statutory language accommodates traditional prosecutorial discretion, and that the INA prevented the district court from vacating the Guidelines. Texas and Louisiana counter that they can sue because a direct injury is not required when a state sues the federal government, that the Guidelines violate the INA because the statutory language specifically override prosecutorial discretion, and that the district court properly vacated the Guidelines because it was authorized by the broad statutory language and court precedent and did not conflict with the INA. The Court’s holding will affect the removal for noncitizens, which significantly impacts the social treatment of and rhetoric surrounding noncitizens, government efficiency and accountability, and public health, safety, and stability.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if the Quiet Title Act’s statute of limitations is a jurisdictional requirement. Petitioners Larry Steven Wilkins and Jane B. Stanton argue that Congress must expressly state its intent when drafting a statute of limitations meant to be treated as a jurisdictional bar; therefore, the absence of such explicit language in the Quiet Title Act means that the statute of limitations is not jurisdictional. The United States contends that Supreme Court precedent supports treating the statute of limitations as a jurisdictional rule and emphasizes that there are no intervening Supreme Court decisions or statutory revisions of the Quiet Title Act that overrule such precedent. The outcome of this case will determine the accessibility of legal relief for individuals when resolving land disputes with the federal government and affect the balance between local governments and the federal government in litigation involving the Quiet Title Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a federal district court has jurisdiction over a suit in which the respondent in an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding, on account of an alleged constitutional defect in the statutes governing the removal of the overseeing administrative law judge. The SEC claims that the Court’s decision in Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Oversight Bd. specifically allows double-tenure protection for administrative law judges, that decisions in Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich and Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury do not require Congress to provide a clear statement in order to strip district courts of jurisdiction, and that constitutional challenges to its administrative adjudications are properly addressed through the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Michelle Cochran counters that administrative law judges should not be granted double tenure from removal because it infringes on executive branch authority, that Thunder Basin requires a clear Congressional statement stripping district courts of jurisdiction, and that the SEC’s statutory authority is insufficient to address her constitutional challenge. The Court’s holding could significantly impact the SEC’s adjudicative activities and the nature, volume, and frequency of judicial review cases more broadly.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources