Issues

This case asks the Court to determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) exemption includes employees who do not work within the transportation industry but conduct work related to transportation. Employee Petitioners argue that the Court should not adopt the Second Circuit's interpretation that industry is dispositive because doing so would be inconsistent with the ruling in Saxon. Additionally, Petitioners argue that Congress specifically phrased the statute to include all workers whose work aided the transportation industry. Employer Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the Court should consider industry as dispositive because this would be consistent with the ruling in Circuit City. Further, Respondents argue that workers who historically fell under similar acts passed by Congress have been those who worked within the transportation industry and—in the case of seamen—had employment contracts that distinguished them as such. This case touches on important questions regarding discrepant treatment of employees and the availability of arbitration as an alternative to judicial action. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to clarify the ambit and enforceability of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, also known as the Disqualification Clause, which states that “[n]o person shall. . . hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, who, having previously taken an oath. . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.” Former President Donald Trump contends that he is not subject to Section Three disqualification because he has not served as a qualifying oath–taking “officer of the United States”; because his actions on January 6th, 2021 were protected speech, not insurrection; and because the Colorado Supreme Court's interpretation of Section Three was legally incorrect. A group of Colorado electors and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold respond that the President is an “officer of the United States” such that Section Three applies to Trump; that Trump engaged in insurrection on January 6th, 2021 and does not qualify for First Amendment protection in that regard; and that the Colorado Supreme Court properly applied Section Three. This case has significant implications for democratic norms and institutions, parties’ and voters’ interests in elections, and the bounds of political activity.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case, along with its companion case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, asks the Supreme Court to consider the government’s interpretation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the reach and constitutionality of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Under Chevron, courts defer to reasonable executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. Relentless, Inc. contends that the partial industry funding component of the government’s at-sea monitors program relies on a faulty interpretation of the governing statute, and that Chevron deference itself is an unconstitutional violation of separation of powers and an abdication of interpretive responsibility by the judiciary. The Department of Commerce counters that its interpretation of the statute is both correct and  entitled to deference. The outcome of this case could have seismic consequences for administrative law, statutory interpretation, and the balance of power between the federal judiciary and the administrative state.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the court to determine whether investors may bring a private claim against an issuer under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for an omission without an associated misleading statement, known as a “pure omission,” based on the disclosure requirements set by Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K. Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation argues that investors cannot bring a private claim for a pure omission because the text and statutory context of § 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Item 303 do not support such claims. In opposition, Moab Partners, L.P. argues that investors may bring a private claim for a pure omission because Supreme Court precedent and statutes comparable to § 10(b) indicate that investors may bring such claims. This case touches on important questions regarding disclosure requirements, issuer liability for omissions, and the suitability of enforcement of securities regulations through private lawsuits.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case, along with its companion case Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, brings before the Supreme Court the question whether the court should overrule, or at least strictly limit, its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Under Chevron, courts defer to reasonable executive agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. Petitioner Loper Bright Enterprises argues that the Chevron decision contravenes the separation of powers by giving too much power to the executive branch. Respondent Raimondo counters that Chevron is a cornerstone of administrative law and is protected by the principles of stare decisis. The Court's decision on this matter will influence how effective the administrative agencies can regulate corporations and individual behavior and the balance of power between the federal judiciary and the administrative state.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the Takings Clause allows a person whose property is taken without compensation to seek redress in court even if the legislature has not provided them with a cause of action. The Petitioners Devillier, et al. argue that the Takings Clause permits individuals to seek redress in court, as the Constitution implicitly bestows the procedural right when granting the substantive right to just compensation. The Petitioners further argue that both the constitutional text and the historical context of the just-compensation right support the recognition of such a right. On the other hand, Respondent State of Texas contends that the Takings Clause on its own does not establish a cause of action, asserting that Congress must provide such authorization before individuals can seek relief in court. The Respondent also argues that neither the text nor the historical background of the just-compensation right indicates an implied cause of action, pointing out that properties have historically been compensated through direct intervention by Congress for over a century. The outcome of this case has significant ramifications for the balance between state and federal court power, judicial and legislative power, and the substantive rights of property owners against the states.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is violated when the State employs an expert who uses another expert’s notes as the basis of their own opinion. Jason Smith argues that the Confrontation Clause forbids the introduction of testimonial statements for their truth from expert witnesses whom a defendant has not had the opportunity to cross-examine, and that the testifying expert’s testimony in his case relied on the nontestifying expert’s testimonial notes and conclusions. Arizona argues that the Confrontation Clause allows experts to testify using facts that are not otherwise admissible when the facts are not submitted for their truth, and that the nontestifying expert’s notes in Smith’s case were not testimonial because they were not created for the purpose of testifying and lacked formality. The outcome of this case has serious implications for defendant’s Confrontation Clause rights and prosecutors’ ability to pursue cases that require forensics.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether El Dorado County’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program (“TIM Program”) is an unconstitutional taking under the Takings Clause. The Takings Clause prohibits the government from taking individual property without just compensation. For a conditional development fee to be constitutional under the Takings Clause, the Nollan and Dolan standard requires the government to show an essential nexus and rough proportionality between the conditional permit’s fee and the permit’s negative public impacts. George Sheetz argues that the TIM Program’s flat fee to all residential homes within his zone is an unconstitutional taking as it is an exaction that is unrelated to traffic impact and makes no individual determinations. County of El Dorado, California argues that Nollan and Dolan do not apply to legislatively mandated development fees that broadly apply to a class of permit applicants. This case has significant implications for regulating development fees in the legislature and for individuals seeking to construct new properties.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide the proper remedy for bankruptcy debtors who were treated differently, paying higher fees under a statute enacted by Congress without constitutional authority. John Q. Hammons Hotels & Resorts entities filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in 2016 and paid $2.5 million higher fees than debtors in some federal districts, before the Judiciary and Congress resolved the disparate treatment. The U.S. Trustee argues that prospective equality in fees is a sufficient remedy, but if a retrospective remedy is required, the Court should extend the higher fees to debtors previously exempt from it. Hammons argues that the only proper remedy for fees paid under an unconstitutional statute is to refund them and that the remedies the U.S. Trustee proposes violate due process. The outcome of this case will affect how the bankruptcy system is funded—by debtors or taxpayers—and the remedial schemes for debtors who received unequal treatment.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether Yonas Fikre’s (“Fikre”) removal from the No Fly List in 2016, alongside a sworn declaration indicating he would not be placed back on it “based on the currently available information,” makes moot his case against the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) regarding his placement on the No Fly List. Fikre argues that although the FBI removed him from its No Fly List in 2016, the government’s guarantees are insufficient to show that he will not be put back on the list for the original reasons, and as such his claim is still valid until the government voluntarily acquiesces to his requests or repudiates its inclusion of him on the list. The FBI counters by indicating that its sworn declaration would necessarily include all information which resulted in Fikre’s inclusion on the No Fly List in 2010 and his removal from it in 2016. Therefore, the FBI argues it is sufficient to prove Fikre would not be relisted for the same reasons as before, and to demand any more would require a showing of bad faith on the part of the government and unnecessarily endanger national security. The outcome of this case has serious implications for national security and the transparency of classified government programs like the No Fly List.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources