Supreme Court of the United States, 2015

The Court held that the Whistleblower Protection Act’s exemption for disclosures 'specifically prohibited by law' excludes regulations and a statute that only authorizes an agency to promulgate regulations prohibiting disclosure.

The Supreme Court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) requires a court of appeals to review a district court's resolution of subsidiary factual disputes underlying patent claim construction for clear error, not de novo, while the ultimate construction of the claim remains a legal question reviewed de…

Petitioner Holt, an Arkansas inmate and Muslim, challenged the state's grooming policy prohibiting beards as violating RLUIPA. The Court held the policy substantially burdens his religious exercise and the state failed to demonstrate it was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest.

Justice Sotomayor concurs with the Court’s holding that the prison Department failed to show why less‑restrictive alternatives were inadequate under RLUIPA, emphasizing that deference to prison officials is limited and that the government must demonstrate that its policy is the least restrictive means of furthering a…

Justice Thomas dissents from the denial of certiorari, arguing that the Court should have granted review to resolve a circuit conflict regarding the scope of the presumption of judicial vindictiveness.

The Supreme Court held that Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy violates RLUIPA by preventing petitioner from growing a ½-inch beard in accordance with his religious beliefs.

Justice Breyer’s opinion for the Court held that appellate courts must review subsidiary factual findings underlying patent claim construction for clear error under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6), while reviewing the ultimate claim construction de novo.

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, dissents from the Court’s denial of a stay of execution for Charles Warner, arguing that the petitioners demonstrated a substantial risk that Oklahoma’s midazolam‑based lethal‑injection protocol could cause unnecessary pain and that they satisfied the…

The Court held that the city’s denial letter satisfied the statutory “in writing” requirement but that the city must also provide a statement of reasons essentially contemporaneously with the denial, and affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment while remanding for further proceedings on T‑Mobile’s remaining claims.

The Court held that under 18 U.S.C. §2113(e) a bank robber “forces a person to accompany him” when he compels the person to go somewhere with him, even if the movement is only a short distance within a single building. The petitioner's argument that the statute required substantial movement was rejected.

Justice Alito dissents from the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for certiorari, arguing that the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that a plaintiff’s transfer to a position he had applied for constitutes an adverse employment action under Title VII, the ADEA, and the Equal Protection Clause.