Supreme Court of the United States, 2017

The Court held that Kentucky’s clear‑statement rule singling out arbitration agreements violates the Federal Arbitration Act, reversed the state court’s decision enforcing that rule for the Clark estate, and vacated the judgment concerning the Wellner estate for further consideration.

The Supreme Court held that a state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a former spouse for the portion of military retirement pay that the veteran waived to receive disability benefits, because federal law preempts such state actions.

The Supreme Court held that the Kentucky Supreme Court's clear-statement rule, which required specific authorization in a power of attorney to waive the right to a jury trial, violated the Federal Arbitration Act by singling out arbitration agreements for disfavored treatment.

The Supreme Court held that the City of Miami is an "aggrieved person" whose financial injuries fall within the Fair Housing Act’s zone of interests, and that proximate‑cause analysis under the Act requires a direct causal relation, not merely foreseeability.

The Court held that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar a negligence suit against a tribal employee sued in his individual capacity, even when the employee acted within the scope of employment, and that an indemnification provision does not extend tribal immunity.

The Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari reviewing a civil rights excessive-force case. In a concurrence, Justice Alito agreed with the denial, noting the Court typically does not grant review for factual disputes in summary judgment.

Justice Breyer denied the petition for certiorari, noting procedural obstacles and expressing concern about the prolonged solitary confinement of a death‑row inmate, but the Court did not grant review of the merits.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a stay of execution and denied the petition for a writ of certiorari, leaving the Eighth Circuit’s reversal of the district court’s injunction in place.

Justice Breyer dissented from the Court’s denial of both the application for a stay of execution and the petition for a writ of certiorari. He argued that Arkansas’s rapid schedule of eight executions in eleven days raises serious constitutional concerns, including the arbitrary selection of inmates and the potential…

Justice Thomas dissents, arguing that petitioners have not shown a substantive entitlement to recover money paid under convictions that were later reversed, and therefore the Court should not have reversed the Colorado Supreme Court’s judgments.

The Court held that when a criminal conviction is invalidated and no retrial will occur, the State must refund fees, costs, and restitution exacted on that conviction. Colorado's Exoneration Act, which requires defendants to prove innocence by clear and convincing evidence to obtain refunds, violates the Fourteenth…

The Supreme Court held that a defendant must file a separate notice of appeal from a restitution order in a deferred restitution case; a single notice filed after the initial judgment does not suffice to review the later‑determined restitution amount, and therefore affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s dismissal of the…

The Supreme Court held that when a federal court uses its inherent authority to sanction bad-faith litigation conduct by ordering payment of the opponent's attorney's fees, the award must be compensatory rather than punitive and is limited to fees the innocent party would not have incurred but for the misconduct.

The Court held that a district court's decision to enforce or quash an EEOC subpoena is subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion, not de novo. It vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that standard.

The Court held that sentencing courts may consider mandatory minimums under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) when calculating sentences for predicate offenses. It reversed the Eighth Circuit, reasoning that § 924(c) does not override § 3553(a) factors.

The Court held that a district court’s decision to enforce or quash an EEOC subpoena must be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo, and vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment, remanding for review under that standard.

The Court held that New York's credit-card surcharge prohibition regulates speech, rather than merely prices, as applied to merchants wishing to post a cash price and an additional credit-card surcharge.

The Court vacated the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals' judgment and remanded the case, holding that the CCA’s reliance on superseded medical standards and the Briseno evidentiary factors to deny Bobby James Moore intellectual‑disability status violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Alito, dissents, arguing that the Court should dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted because petitioners changed the question presented and there is no circuit conflict on the issue. He warns against allowing parties to bait‑and‑switch the question before the Court.

The Court held that a bankruptcy court lacks authority to approve a structured dismissal that deviates from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme without the consent of affected creditors, and affirmed that the petitioners have standing to challenge such a dismissal.

Justice Thomas's majority opinion held that an artistic feature incorporated into a useful article is eligible for copyright protection if it can be perceived separately as a two- or three-dimensional work of art and would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work when imagined apart from the…

The Supreme Court held that Elijah Manuel may challenge his 48-day pretrial detention under the Fourth Amendment even though it followed the onset of legal process, because a probable-cause determination built solely on fabricated police statements did nothing to satisfy the probable-cause requirement and thus could…

Justice Breyer dissents from the Court's ruling that laches cannot bar a patent infringement damages claim brought within the statutory limitations period. He argues that Congress intended to codify a century of precedent where courts uniformly applied laches to patent damages, and distinguishes the majority's…

Justice Thomas, dissenting, argues that a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure does not accrue until the first judicial determination of probable cause and that the Fourth Amendment cannot support a malicious prosecution claim, rendering Manuel's suit untimely.

Justice Alito’s opinion for the Court held that laches cannot bar recovery of patent-infringement damages for infringement occurring within the six-year period prescribed by 35 U.S.C. §286.

Justice Thomas concurs with the Court’s interpretation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act but argues separately that the Constitution’s Appointments Clause likely bars the President’s appointment of Lafe Solomon as acting general counsel of the NLRB without Senate confirmation.

Justice Breyer dissents, arguing that Ruiz’s 22‑year solitary confinement on death row creates a severe Eighth Amendment problem and that a stay of execution is warranted to allow fuller review.

The Supreme Court holds that the Sixth Amendment requires an exception to the no-impeachment rule when a juror makes a clear statement indicating reliance on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a defendant, allowing trial courts to consider such evidence.

Justice Sotomayor concurred in the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Perez, noting that the lower courts had not addressed the First Amendment issues raised by the conviction under Florida’s threat statute.

Justices Thomas and Alito dissent, arguing the Sixth Amendment does not override traditional no-impeachment rules regarding juror testimony even for claims of racial bias. Thomas emphasizes original meaning and common law forbidding such evidence, while Alito maintains that the rules preserve finality and deliberation…

Justice Kennedy concurs in the judgment, arguing that the Due Process vagueness doctrine applies to sentencing guidelines and that the career‑offender guideline at issue was not unconstitutionally vague.

The Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires an exception to the no-impeachment rule when a juror makes clear statements indicating racial animus was a significant motivating factor in the verdict.

The Court held that the District Court erred by requiring a threshold conflict between the enacted redistricting plan and traditional principles to prove racial predominance. For 11 districts, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded for the District Court to reconsider the claim under the proper holistic standard.

The Supreme Court reversed the Fifth Circuit's denial of a certificate of appealability in capital habeas petitioner Duane Buck's case, holding that the court below inverted the statutory COA process by deciding the merits of his Rule 60(b)(6) and ineffective-assistance claims before denying review.

The Supreme Court held that 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l) requires a plaintiff suing under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or similar statutes to exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures only when the gravamen of her complaint seeks relief for the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE), because FAPE-denial…

Justice Sotomayor delivered the Court's opinion holding that a “substantial portion” of a patented invention's components under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1) is measured quantitatively, not qualitatively, and that supplying a single component from the United States for combination abroad cannot satisfy that requirement.

The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, concluding that the issues presented—whether Texas enacted SB14 with discriminatory purpose and whether it violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act—are not yet ripe for review because the lower courts have not entered a final remedial order.

The Supreme Court, per curiam, granted certiorari and vacated the Tenth Circuit's judgment denying qualified immunity to Officer Ray White, holding that on the record described by the panel White did not violate clearly established Fourth Amendment law when he shot and killed Samuel Pauly without first giving a…