Supreme Court of the United States, 2013

The Court held that contractual limitations provisions in ERISA plans are enforceable if reasonable and not prohibited by a controlling statute. The Court affirmed the decision that a 3-year limitations period starting when proof of loss is due is valid, even though it begins before a participant can file suit…

The Supreme Court held that Younger abstention is confined to the three 'exceptional circumstances' identified in New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans — ongoing state criminal prosecutions, civil enforcement proceedings akin to criminal prosecutions, and civil proceedings involving orders…

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted without ruling on the merits. The dissenting opinion argued that the case should not be dismissed and called for further briefing on mootness, Article III standing, and whether section 302 authorizes a private right of action.

The Court held that a district court conducting a partnership-level proceeding under TEFRA has jurisdiction to determine whether a valuation-misstatement penalty may apply, even when imposing the penalty would require later partner-level determinations.

The Supreme Court held that a forum-selection clause is enforced through a § 1404(a) motion to transfer when it points to another federal forum, and through the doctrine of forum non conveniens when it points to a state or foreign forum — not through dismissal under 28 U.S.C.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration of the Government’s jurisdictional arguments. The Court held that the lower court’s strict construction of § 6611(b) was premature and that the Sixth Circuit should first address whether the…

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Scalia, dissents from the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Sixth Circuit misapplied Harrington v. Richter by treating a Michigan Court of Appeals order as ambiguous when Michigan law makes it a clear merits adjudication.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a district judge's practice of requiring class counsel to reflect the class's race and gender composition. The denial does not express any view on the merits of the standing or constitutional issues raised.

Justice Breyer dissents from the denial of certiorari, arguing that Alabama's judicial override sentencing scheme warrants reconsideration under the Eighth and Sixth Amendments given its isolation and inconsistency with Apprendi and Ring.

A dissenting justice argues the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the Michigan Court of Appeals order denying ineffective assistance claims 'for lack of merit' was not an adjudication on the merits.

The Court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis and denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Scalia, dissented from the denial of certiorari, arguing the Second Circuit's habeas relief contravened AEDPA and Supreme Court precedents on independent source identification.

The Court held that the Sixth Circuit failed to apply the 'doubly deferential' AEDPA-plus-Strickland standard of review when it refused to credit the Michigan Court of Appeals' reasonable factual finding that Titlow withdrew her guilty plea only after proclaiming innocence to her newly retained lawyer, and when it…

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, leaving in place the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding the class‑action settlement that employed a cy pres remedy. The Court explained that the challenge was limited to the specific settlement and that it was not the appropriate forum to address broader questions…

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Kennedy, dissents from the Court’s grant, vacate, and remand. The dissent contends that the majority’s application of the “modified categorical” approach to the Pennsylvania assault statute is misplaced because the underlying conviction may have been based on reckless conduct rather…

Justice Thomas dissents from the Court's denial of certiorari, arguing the Court should reconsider Feres v. United States. He contends that Feres wrongly bars military personnel from suing under the Federal Tort Claims Act despite the statute's text allowing liability for all persons.

The dissenting opinions argue the Court lacks Article III jurisdiction due to absence of a real controversy, and that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is constitutional under the Fifth Amendment.

The Supreme Court reversed Sekhar’s conviction for attempted extortion under the Hobbs Act. The Court held that theing a government employee to recommend an investment does not constitute obtaining “property,” because the Hobbs Act requires property to be capable of transfer from victim to extorter.

The Court first held that it possessed jurisdiction despite the Executive's agreement with Windsor: the unpaid refund order left the United States with a real economic stake, and BLAG's vigorous defense of DOMA supplied the adverseness that prudential considerations demand.

The Supreme Court held that the Nollan-Dolan standard applies to permit conditions even if the government denies the permit when the applicant refuses to comply, and even when the demand is for money rather than an interest in real property.

The Supreme Court reversed the South Carolina Supreme Court, holding that provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (§§1912(d) and (f)) do not apply to terminate a biological father's rights where he never had custody of the child, and that placement preferences (§1915(a)) do not apply when no alternative party has…

Justice Sotomayor dissents, arguing the majority misinterprets the Indian Child Welfare Act by excluding noncustodial biological fathers from its protections. She contends that ICWA broadly defines 'parent' and requires active efforts and heightened evidentiary standards before terminating parental rights, regardless…

Justice Breyer concurs with the Court’s opinion, emphasizing that the statute’s language does not clearly address absentee Indian fathers and that the Court should limit its decision to the issues presented.

Justice Thomas concurred in the judgment, arguing that constitutional avoidance compels the Court's narrow interpretation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). He posits that the Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress plenary power over Indian affairs sufficient to override state custody laws.

The Supreme Court held that the standards from Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard apply to land-use permit conditions even when the government denies the permit rather than approving it on condition, and even when the condition demands money rather than an interest in real property.

The Court held that ICWA provisions barring involuntary termination of parental rights (§§ 1912(d), (f)) do not apply when a biological parent never had custody of the child. The Court further ruled that adoption placement preferences (§ 1915(a)) do not bar a non-Indian family from adopting when no other eligible…

The Court held that a Title VII retaliation plaintiff must prove that the protected activity was the but-for cause of the challenged employment action. The motivating-factor standard applies to status-based discrimination claims but not to retaliation claims because the statutory text and structure confine it to…

The Supreme Court held that the modified categorical approach does not apply to indivisible statutes that criminalize conduct broader than the generic offense. Descamps' California burglary conviction could not serve as an ACCA predicate because the statute lacked the unlawful-entry element required for generic…

The Supreme Court held that sentencing courts may not apply the modified categorical approach when the statute of conviction contains a single, indivisible set of elements sweeping more broadly than the generic offense, reversing the Ninth Circuit's reliance on its en banc Aguila-Montes de Oca decision.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, holding that petitioner Salinas’s Fifth Amendment claim fails because he did not expressly invoke the privilege against self‑incrimination during a non‑custodial police interview.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Breyer, held that reverse-payment patent settlements can violate antitrust law even when their restraints fall within the patent’s potential exclusionary scope.

The Supreme Court held that an attorney’s solicitation of clients is not a permissible purpose under the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act’s (b)(4) litigation exception, vacating the Fourth Circuit’s judgment and remanding for application of the proper “predominant purpose” test.

Justice Alito dissents, arguing that the majority’s overruling of Harris v. United States disregards stare decisis and that the Court’s reliance on the Apprendi line is historically and doctrinally flawed.

The Court held that Arizona's requirement that voter‑registration applicants provide documentary proof of citizenship is pre‑empted by the National Voter Registration Act's mandate that states "accept and use" the uniform federal form.

Justice Alito dissented from the Court's interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act, arguing that the Act does not clearly pre-empt Arizona's requirement that voter-registration applicants provide proof of citizenship.

The Court held that the National Voter Registration Act pre-empts Arizona's requirement that applicants using the federal voter-registration form submit documentary proof of citizenship.

Justice Thomas dissents, arguing that the majority’s reading of 42 U.S.C. §1973gg‑4(a)(1) improperly pre‑empts Arizona’s law requiring proof of citizenship and that the Constitution reserves the power to set and verify voter qualifications to the States.

The Court held that any fact that increases a statutory mandatory minimum sentence is an element of the offense that must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Justice Thomas's opinion held that naturally occurring DNA is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 merely because it has been isolated, but that synthetically created complementary DNA generally is patent eligible because it is distinct from naturally occurring DNA.

The Supreme Court held that the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction to hear the petitioners' Fifth Amendment takings defense because the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act’s comprehensive remedial scheme withdraws Tucker Act jurisdiction, and therefore reversed the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal and remanded for further…

The Supreme Court held that the Nevada Supreme Court’s exclusion of extrinsic evidence under state evidentiary rules did not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense, and therefore the Ninth Circuit’s finding of an unreasonable application of federal law was erroneous.