Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether state public policy can impact the enforcement of a choice-of-law provision in a maritime contract. Great Lakes Insurance disputed an insurance claim for Raiders Retreat’s yacht and contends that under the choice-of-law provision in their contract, federal maritime law or, alternatively, New York law applied. Great Lakes argues that such provisions are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law unless they are contrary to federal public policy. Raiders argues that state public policy can override the presumption of enforceability of choice-of-law provisions, and the state law or Restatement provisions followed by many states should apply. The outcome of this case bears important consequences on whether federal or state law should govern questions of maritime commerce, and whether courts should prioritize uniformity of law over state sovereignty.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the district court panel erred in ruling that South Carolina’s Congressional District 1 (“CD1”) was a racial gerrymander prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellee the South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (“the NAACP”) asserts that the panel correctly found that the redistricting board set a 17% black voting age population (“BVAP”) target for their new map of CD1 to create a partisan tilt favoring Republican candidates. Appellant Thomas Alexander (“Alexander”) asserts that racial data was not a factor in the redistricting process and that, instead, the designers of CD1 relied on political data, mainly the precinct-level voting patterns from the 2020 election. Thus, Alexander argues that CD1 does not violate equal protection jurisprudence which permits a political, but not racial, gerrymander. Because of the small majority the Republican Party holds in the US House of Representatives, this case has the potential to have a major shift on both South Carolina’s congressional delegation, but also the political tilt of the House as a whole.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the court to analyze 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1), which establishes which criminal defendants can receive reduced sentences under the federal “safety valve” provision and determine whether a defendant is ineligible for safety valve relief only when they meet all three of § 3553(f)(1)’s listed criteria, or if they become ineligible after meeting even one of the three criteria. Pulsifer argues that all three listed criteria must be met for the defendant to be disqualified from safety valve relief, because the “and” which connects the three offense categories is used in the joint sense and bundles the three offense categories together. Pulsifer points to the plain meaning of the statute and Congress’s intent to introduce lenity in sentencing for some criminal defendants. In opposition, the United States argues that the “and” is distributive in this context and effectively functions as an “or”. Therefore, the United States argues, a defendant is disqualified from safety valve relief if they meet even one of the three offense criteria. The United States further maintains that a distributive “and” is required for a proper reading because reading the statute otherwise would render its text arbitrary and redundant. The United States also posits that a distributive “and” would protect the general public from habitual offenders and satisfy Congress’s goal of combating recidivism. This case touches on important questions regarding sentencing guidelines for drug offenses, leniency in sentencing, and the interpretation of federal sentencing statutes.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (“CFPB”) funding structure is constitutional under the Appropriations Clause. The CFPB argues that the text of the Appropriations Clause, in conjunction with its historical and modern understandings, supports its existing funding structure. Consumer Financial Services Association of America counters that the Appropriations Clause requires Congress to make a valid appropriation, and the current funding structure does not satisfy this requirement. The outcome of this case has serious implications for the regulation of financial markets and for consumers who borrow from financial institutions.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide on the Article III standing question where a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) “tester” challenges a hotel reservation website’s failure to disclose information about disability accessibility. Petitioner Acheson Hotels, LLC argues that Respondent Deborah Laufer lacks standing because she failed to assert any concrete, stigmatic, or emotional injury resulting from the missing accessibility information. In opposition, Laufer contends that Acheson’s discrimination against disabled people is the exact type of harm Congress intended to prevent by enacting the ADA. While Acheson further asserts that the case is moot because the website now complies with the ADA regulations, Laufer counters that she suffers continuing injury from third-party websites. The outcome of this case will affect the balance between protecting small businesses from excessive litigation and ensuring tester-plaintiffs’ role in effectively enforcing the ADA regulations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a foreign party can file a claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) when they suffer injury to their intangible property. Respondent Vitaly Smagin alleges that Petitioner Ashot Yegiazaryan violated RICO by injuring his intangible property: a judgment Smagin previously secured against Yegiazaryan in the United States. Yegiazaryan argues that plaintiffs can only bring a RICO claim if the injury underlying such a claim has a domestic, and not foreign, locus. Accordingly, Yegiazaryan contends that the alleged injury to the judgment occurred outside of the United States and therefore is not cognizable under RICO. In contrast, Smagin argues that the injury occurred in the United States and consequently falls under RICO. The Court’s decision will impact the scope of RICO, as well as relations between the United States and other sovereigns.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the government violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment when the government forfeits a homeowner’s property due to a property tax delinquency and keeps the surplus proceeds of that property’s sale.  Petitioner Geraldine Tyler argues that her equity interest in her condominium is private property protected by the Takings Clause, and that the government violated the Takings Clause by selling her home and retaining proceeds in excess of her debt to the government.  She further contends that the forfeiture serves punitive rather than remedial purposes and thus is an excessive fine under the Excessive Fines Clause.  Respondent Hennepin County asserts that the government has the sovereign power to foreclose on properties to hold tax delinquents accountable.  Hennepin County also argues that tax forfeitures do not violate the Excessive Fines Clause because they are remedial and not punitive.  This case’s holding will impact the constitutional limit on the government’s power over individual property rights and the government’s ability to promote Minnesota productive land use.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses congressional intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indigenous tribes. The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians argues that the Bankruptcy Code’s language is unclear, ambiguous, and subject to reasonable alternative interpretations, which fails to meet the high bar of an unequivocal expression of Congress’s intent. Brian W. Coughlin counters that there is no requirement for an explicit reference to Indigenous tribes, and that the ordinary meaning of the word “governmental unit” clearly shows Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indigenous tribes. This case touches on essential questions regarding tribal self-governance and abuse of the system of sovereign immunity.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether litigants can preserve purely legal issues for appellate review without having to raise such issues in a Rule 50 motion for judgment as a matter of law. This case also asks whether a trial court’s rejection of a litigant’s motion for summary judgment as a matter of law constitutes a final judgment subject to appellate review. Petitioner Neil Dupree argues that the Court should allow the preservation for appeal of purely legal issues rejected by the trial court in summary judgment without raising them again in a Rule 50 motion, according to the principles of the final judgment rule and interpretation of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Respondent Kevin Younger counters that the Court must require litigants to file a Rule 50 motion to preserve legal issues for appellate review because a rejection of a motion for summary judgment does not constitute an appealable final judgment. This case also has implications for judicial efficiency and economy.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine whether the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729, which punishes individuals who “knowingly present[], or cause[] to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval,” applies if, regardless of their subjective belief about the lawfulness of their conduct, defendants’ conduct is consistent with an objectively reasonable reading of an ambiguous statute. The United States argues that, under common law and the FCA’s text, when individuals make arguments that they believe are false, they can be liable even if they did not definitively know they were lying. The United States further argues that individuals receiving government funds have a duty to ask for clarification and determine the proper law, and thus are liable for advancing false claims against the government. In opposition, SuperValu argues that an individual’s subjective belief is irrelevant under the FCA because interpretations of ambiguous statutes cannot be objectively verified; thus, an individual is not liable if the statute is ambiguous, and the individual’s interpretation is objectively reasonable. SuperValu also states that, because the FCA is a punitive statute, the burden is on the government to clarify the statute and give individuals notice. This case touches on issues of efficient government fraud prosecution, separation of powers, and Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources