Supreme Court of the United States, 2016

The Court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act judgment‑bar provision (28 U.S.C. §2676) does not apply to claims that fall within the FTCA’s statutory Exceptions, such as discretionary‑function claims. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s second suit against individual prison employees may proceed.

The Court rejected a judicially created "special circumstances" exception to the Prison Litigation Reform Act's mandatory exhaustion requirement. It held that a prisoner must exhaust available administrative remedies, but need not exhaust remedies that are unavailable because they operate as a dead end, are…

Justice Breyer, joined by Justice Ginsburg, dissents from the denial of certiorari, arguing that the death penalty may be cruel and unusual under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, especially given the defendant’s youth, intellectual disability, and geographic disparities in sentencing.

The Court held that, under Simmons v. South Carolina, a capital defendant who is parole‑ineligible has a due‑process right to inform the sentencing jury of that fact when future dangerousness is at issue, and reversed the Arizona Supreme Court’s judgment, remanding for further proceedings consistent with that rule.

The Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit, holding that an approved jurisdictional determination issued by the Army Corps of Engineers is a final agency action subject to judicial review under the APA because it satisfies both Bennett prongs and because no adequate alternative remedies exist.

Justice Kagan concurs with the Court’s judgment that the Corps’ jurisdictional determination is a final agency action, but emphasizes that the Army Corps‑EPA memorandum of agreement is central to that conclusion because it creates a binding five‑year safe harbor.

The Court held that an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) by the Army Corps of Engineers is final agency action reviewable under the APA. The JD meets the Bennett v. Spear test for finality because it marks the consummation of the Corps' decisionmaking and has direct legal consequences.

The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana, which makes Miller v. Alabama retroactive.

The Supreme Court held that the ten Members of Congress who intervened lack standing to appeal the district court’s decision striking down Virginia’s congressional redistricting plan, and therefore dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court held that a state offense qualifies as an 'aggravated felony' under the Immigration and Nationality Act even if it lacks an interstate commerce jurisdictional element required in the corresponding federal statute.

Justice Sotomayor concurs with the Court that the petitioner cannot assert a Speedy Trial Clause claim for the interval between his guilty plea and sentencing. She notes that a due‑process claim for such a delay remains open, suggesting that the flexible Barker test would be appropriate.

The Supreme Court held that a Title VII defendant does not need to obtain a favorable ruling on the merits to be considered a 'prevailing party' eligible for attorney's fees. The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit's decision, reasoning that requiring a merits ruling would undermine the statutory purpose of deterring…

The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s speedy trial guarantee does not apply to sentencing after a conviction or guilty plea. The Court reasoned that the Clause protects the presumptively innocent accused from arrest through trial, and its primary remedy of dismissal does not fit post-conviction delays.

The Supreme Court held that a Title VII defendant does not need a ruling on the merits to be considered a prevailing party for attorney‑fee purposes. The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

The Court held that the jurisdictional test in §27 of the Securities Exchange Act is identical to the “arising under” test of §1331, so the statute confers federal jurisdiction only when a suit is brought to enforce an Exchange Act duty.

The Court held that the California Supreme Court's summary denial of Hinojosa's state habeas petition was an adjudication on the merits, so AEDPA’s deferential review applies and the Ninth Circuit’s grant of habeas relief was reversed.

The Court held that the Ninth Circuit’s standing analysis was incomplete because it addressed whether Robins’s alleged injury was particularized but did not separately determine whether it was concrete.

Justice Thomas dissents, holding that the Bankruptcy Code’s §523(a)(2)(A) exemption for "actual fraud" does not extend to debts arising from fraudulent transfer schemes because the statute requires a false representation that induces the creditor and the phrase "obtained by" implies causation at the inception of the…

The Court held that Article III injury in fact must be both concrete and particularized, and that the Ninth Circuit had addressed only particularization when finding standing for Robins’ Fair Credit Reporting Act claims.

The Supreme Court held that the phrase 'actual fraud' in 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A) encompasses fraudulent conveyance schemes, even those effected without any false representation to a creditor, because the term carries its fixed common-law meaning under which transfers made with intent to hinder creditors have always…

The Court vacated and remanded the judgments without ruling on the merits, instructing lower courts to allow parties to resolve the issue given new submissions confirming contraceptive coverage could be provided without employer involvement.

The Supreme Court affirmed Ocasio’s Hobbs Act conspiracy conviction, holding that a conspiracy to commit extortion does not require the conspirators to agree to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy.

Justice Thomas dissents from the denial of certiorari in this takings case. He argues the Court should grant review to overrule Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which imposes a state-litigation requirement before federal takings claims may be heard.

The Court held that 22 U.S.C. § 8772, which authorizes execution against assets of Iran’s central bank to satisfy terrorism judgments, does not violate the separation of powers. Congress may amend the law applicable to pending cases so long as it creates new substantive standards rather than dictating a result under…

The Supreme Court held that when a district court sentences a defendant under an incorrect, higher Sentencing Guidelines range, the error itself can, and in most cases will, suffice to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome absent the error, satisfying the substantial-rights prong of plain-error review…

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment upholding Arizona's legislative redistricting plan, holding that population deviations under 10% are permissible when justified by legitimate considerations such as compliance with the Voting Rights Act, and the appellants failed to show that illegitimate…

The Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Circuit's judgment holding Maryland's subsidy program preempted by the Federal Power Act (FPA). Maryland's program guaranteed a generator a rate distinct from FERC-approved wholesale auction clearing prices, effectively setting wholesale rates and intruding on federal…

Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion clarifies the pre‑emption principles that guide analysis under the Federal Power Act, emphasizing the collaborative federalism framework and the limited role of pre‑emption in such programs.

The Court held that Johnson announced a new substantive rule that applies retroactively in collateral review, and clarified the standard for a certificate of appealability, vacating the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and remanding for further proceedings.

The Supreme Court held that SORNA does not require a sex offender to update registration in a state he no longer resides in, so Nichols was not obligated to notify Kansas after moving to the Philippines, and his conviction under 18 U.S.C. §2250(a)(3) was reversed.

Justice Thomas filed a dissent from the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for certiorari, urging the Court to revisit and overrule Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. §1447(d).

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissents from the Court’s denial of Nebraska and Oklahoma’s motion for leave to file a complaint against Colorado, arguing that the Court lacks discretion to refuse jurisdiction over a controversy between states under 28 U.S.C. §1251(a).

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's judgment upholding the state's stun‑gun ban, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Heller and McDonald, holding that the ban violates the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s judgment upholding the state’s stun‑gun ban, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Heller and McDonald.

The Court held that the Georgia adoption judgment is a valid final judgment of a court with subject‑matter jurisdiction and therefore must be given full faith and credit by Alabama courts.

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion in the Court’s denial of certiorari, noting that the case raises an important but unsettled takings‑clause question about whether the Nollan/Dolan “nexus and rough proportionality” test applies to legislative exactions.

The Supreme Court held that an unaccepted Rule 68 settlement offer does not moot a plaintiff’s claim, so the district court retained jurisdiction, and that a private contractor performing government work does not enjoy derivative sovereign immunity under the TCPA.

The Supreme Court held that Miller v. Alabama announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law — barring life without parole for all but the rarest juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect irreparable corruption — and that the Constitution requires state collateral review courts to give retroactive effect to new…

The Supreme Court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has statutory authority under the Federal Power Act to regulate wholesale demand response programs because they directly affect wholesale rates without intruding on state authority over retail sales.

The Court held that the Federal Power Act grants FERC authority to regulate wholesale market operators' compensation of demand response bids because the practice directly affects wholesale rates and does not impermissibly regulate retail sales.