Supreme Court of the United States, 2017

The Supreme Court granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the Ninth Circuit’s order, and remanded the case for further proceedings, without addressing the merits of the DACA rescission challenge.

Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, dissents from the Court’s grant of a stay of the district court’s orders requiring the government to supplement the administrative record pending consideration of the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

Justice Breyer dissents from the Supreme Court’s order granting a stay of the district court’s discovery orders while the Government’s petition for mandamus is considered. He argues that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that the Government has not met, and that the “whole administrative record” includes all…

Justice Sotomayor dissents from the Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari in Reeves v. Alabama. She argues that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals erred by imposing a rule that a petitioner must call trial counsel to testify to prove ineffective assistance, a requirement contrary to…

Justice (author) dissents from the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, arguing that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals erred by requiring trial‑counsel testimony and by ignoring the extensive non‑testimonial evidence in the record when evaluating Reeves’s ineffective‑assistance claim.

Justice Ginsburg delivered the Court's unanimous opinion holding that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C)'s limit on extensions for filing a notice of appeal is a mandatory claim-processing rule, not a jurisdictional limitation, because the applicable statute does not impose that limit.

Justice Breyer joins the Court’s per curiam disposition and, in a separate concurring opinion, highlights the problem of extraordinarily long delays on death row, arguing that such delays exacerbate the cruelty of capital punishment and suggest reconsidering the death penalty’s constitutionality.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a stay of execution and denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. By refusing both requests, the Court left in place the lower courts' orders and did not address the merits of the claim that Ohio's execution protocol violates the Eighth Amendment.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissents from the denial of certiorari in Peruta v. County of San Diego. He argues the Second Amendment likely protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense and the Court should grant review to resolve the conflict among lower courts.

Justice Gorsuch concurred in an order vacating a defendant's mandatory minimum sentence, arguing that remand to the court of appeals allows resolution of remaining plain error prongs.

The Court reversed the Eighth Circuit, holding that Missouri’s exclusion of Trinity Lutheran Church from its Scrap Tire Program because the applicant is a church violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Justice Thomas, dissenting, argues that the Fourth Amendment should protect the victim despite his location on the Mexican side of a border culvert and that a Bivens action for damages should be available.

The Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the appellate court should first address the Bivens question and related Fourth and Fifth Amendment issues.

The Supreme Court held that the narrow equitable exception announced in Martinez v. Ryan and clarified in Trevino v. Thaler does not extend to procedurally defaulted claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; a prisoner whose state postconviction counsel ineffectively failed to raise such a claim cannot…

The Supreme Court reversed the Arkansas Supreme Court, holding that under Obergefell v. Hodges, the State must issue birth certificates listing the non-biological spouse of a birth mother in same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages.

The Supreme Court held that Jae Lee, a lawful permanent resident who pleaded guilty to possessing ecstasy with intent to distribute after his attorney wrongly assured him the plea would not lead to deportation, established Strickland prejudice by showing a reasonable probability that, properly advised, he would have…

The Court affirmed the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, holding that for regulatory takings analysis, the relevant parcel is determined by a multifactor test assessing state law treatment, physical characteristics, and prospective value.

The Supreme Court held that a structural error—here, closure of the courtroom to the public during two days of jury selection—does not entitle a defendant to automatic relief when it is raised for the first time in an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim rather than preserved and presented on direct review; the…

The Court held that to convict under 18 U.S.C. §1425(a) the Government must prove that the defendant's illegal conduct, such as a false statement, played a causal role in obtaining citizenship, and vacated the Sixth Circuit’s judgment, remanding for further proceedings.

Justice Sotomayor dissents, arguing that the majority’s rule restricting specific jurisdiction for nationwide corporate conduct is inconsistent with fairness and established precedents, and would impede mass actions.

The Supreme Court held that California courts lack specific jurisdiction under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause to entertain the Plavix claims of nonresident plaintiffs who were not prescribed, did not purchase, did not ingest, and were not injured by the drug in California.

The Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s judgment invalidating the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause under the First Amendment. Justice Alito’s opinion held that the clause reaches trademarks disparaging racial or ethnic groups and that registered trademarks are private speech, not government speech.

The Court held that the detainees' claims challenging a high-level post-September 11 detention policy could not proceed under an implied damages remedy because they arose in a new context and special factors counseled leaving any remedy to Congress.

The Court held that Alabama unreasonably applied clearly established federal law under Ake v. Oklahoma by failing to provide an indigent capital defendant access to mental health expert assistance in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense at the sentencing hearing.

The Supreme Court held that North Carolina's statute making it a felony for a registered sex offender to access commercial social networking websites violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

The Court held that the gender‑based distinction in 8 U.S.C. § 1409(a) and (c) violates the equal‑protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. It affirmed the Second Circuit’s finding of unconstitutionality but declined to extend the one‑year physical‑presence exception to unwed fathers, remanding…

The Supreme Court affirmed that a company which regularly purchases debts originated by another entity and then collects those debts for its own account is not a 'debt collector' under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's definition of one who regularly collects or attempts to collect 'debts owed or due ...

The Supreme Court held that 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) does not impose joint and several liability for forfeiture on co‑conspirators; each defendant is liable only for property he himself obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of the crime, and therefore reversed the Sixth Circuit’s judgment against Terry…

The Supreme Court held that SEC disgorgement is a penalty within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2462, so the five‑year statute of limitations applies to disgorgement claims. The Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and required disgorgement actions to be filed within five years of accrual.

The Supreme Court held that an intervenor of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) must satisfy Article III's standing requirements whenever it seeks relief different from or in addition to the relief requested by a party with standing, because for every form of relief sought some litigant—whether…

The Supreme Court rejected the Ninth Circuit's 'provocation rule,' under which officers whose defensive use of force is objectively reasonable under Graham v. Connor may nonetheless be held liable for excessive force when a separate Fourth Amendment violation intentionally or recklessly provoked the violent…

Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion held that an authorized sale exhausts all patent rights in the particular item sold, regardless of post-sale restrictions or whether the sale occurs domestically or abroad.

Justice Sotomayor concurs with the majority that the Federal Employers' Liability Act does not create personal jurisdiction and that the Montana Supreme Court misapplied due‑process analysis, but she dissents from the majority’s application of the Daimler "at‑home" test and would remand for a fact‑intensive inquiry…

Justice Ginsburg concurs with the Court’s holding that a domestic sale exhausts U.S. patent rights, but dissents from the majority’s view that a foreign sale likewise exhausts those rights, arguing that patent law is territorial and foreign sales do not diminish U.S. patent protection.

The Court affirmed the District Court's judgment that North Carolina's Districts 1 and 12 were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. It held race predominated in drawing both districts. For District 1, compliance with §2 of the VRA did not justify the use of race because the state lacked a strong basis in evidence.

Justice Thomas concurred, arguing that North Carolina's concession regarding District 1 is sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny and that VRA Section 2 does not justify racial gerrymandering.

The Court held that the Hague Service Convention does not prohibit service of process by mail. Article 10(a) permits sending judicial documents through postal channels as long as the receiving state has not objected.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that a domestic corporation resides only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Congress's amendments to the general venue statute, § 1391, did not alter the meaning established in Fourco.

The Supreme Court held that a state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss of retirement pay caused by the veteran’s post‑divorce waiver of that pay to obtain disability benefits, reversing the Arizona Supreme Court and remanding for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.