Supreme Court of the United States, 2018

The Court affirmed dismissal of the petitioners’ Alien Tort Statute claims, holding that foreign corporations may not be defendants in ATS suits absent further action by Congress.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that 18 U.S.C. §16(b)—the residual clause of the federal “crime of violence” definition, incorporated into the INA's “aggravated felony” definition—is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Applying Johnson v.

The Supreme Court held that when the last state court to adjudicate a federal claim on the merits does so without explanation, a federal habeas court must "look through" the unexplained decision to the last related state-court decision providing a relevant rationale and presume the higher court adopted that reasoning…

The Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s residual clause in § 16(b) is unconstitutionally vague because it requires courts to apply an “ordinary case” analysis, violating the Due Process Clause’s fair‑notice requirement.

The Supreme Court, per curiam, granted certiorari and summarily reversed the Ninth Circuit's denial of qualified immunity to Tucson Officer Andrew Kisela, who fired four shots through a chain-link fence at Amy Hughes after she ignored repeated commands to drop a kitchen knife during an encounter lasting less than a…

The Supreme Court held that automobile-dealership service advisors are exempt from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirement under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A) because they are "salesmen primarily engaged in servicing automobiles." Giving the undefined statutory terms their ordinary meanings, the Court reasoned that service…

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, held that when one of several cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is finally decided, the losing party has an immediate right to appeal under 28 U.S.C.

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the Fifth Circuit applied the incorrect legal standard in denying a capital habeas petitioner's request for funding under 18 U.S.C. §3599(f).

The Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition challenged Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme as violating the Eighth Amendment’s narrowing requirement, but the Court noted the record was limited and the issue would be better suited for review after a full evidentiary hearing.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissents from the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari, arguing that the Court should have granted review to reconsider the Auer and Seminole Rock deference doctrines.

Justice Sotomayor dissented from the Court’s denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that Ohio’s statute shielding life‑without‑parole sentences from appellate review raises serious Eighth Amendment concerns. The Court, however, did not address the merits and left the petition denied.

The Court held that the United States, as an intervenor, may assert the Rio Grande Compact claims it pleaded in the original action brought by Texas. It sustained the United States’ exception, overruled Colorado’s competing exception, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit, holding that appellate review of a bankruptcy court’s determination of non‑statutory insider status—specifically whether a transaction was arm’s length—is a mixed question of law and fact that warrants clear‑error review.

The Supreme Court affirmed the D.C. Circuit, holding that Section 2(b) of the Gun Lake Trust Land Reaffirmation Act does not violate Article III because it changes the law by stripping federal jurisdiction, which is a permissible exercise of Congress’s legislative power.

The Supreme Court held that 8 U.S.C. §§1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) do not give detained aliens a statutory right to periodic bond hearings during immigration proceedings, and that neither §1225(b) nor §1226(c) contains an implicit six-month limit on detention.

The Court held that an unconditional guilty plea, by itself, does not bar a federal defendant from appealing the constitutionality of the statute of conviction. Class's Second Amendment and due process claims challenged the Government's authority to criminalize his admitted conduct, did not contradict the indictment…

The Supreme Court held that, under 42 U.S.C. §1997e(d)(2), district courts must apply as much of a prevailing prisoner’s judgment as necessary—up to the 25 percent cap—to satisfy the attorney’s fee award.

The Court held that 28 U.S.C. §1610(g) does not create a standalone exception allowing attachment of a foreign state's property after a §1605A terrorism judgment; the provision only applies when the property’s immunity has already been removed by another subsection of §1610, and therefore affirmed the Seventh…

The Supreme Court entered a decree finding Wyoming liable for violations of the Yellowstone River Compact by reducing water flow to Montana, awarding damages and outlining detailed rules for the administration of pre‑1950 water rights, calls, and reservoir storage under the Compact.

The Supreme Court entered a decree awarding Montana monetary damages for Wyoming’s violations of the Yellowstone River Compact and established detailed rules governing calls, storage, and reservoir operations under Article V(A) of the Compact.

The Supreme Court entered a decree finding Wyoming violated the Yellowstone River Compact by reducing water flows to Montana, awarding monetary damages and setting detailed rules for calls, storage, and reservoir operations under the Compact.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the D.C. Circuit, holding that officers had probable cause to arrest 21 partygoers for unlawful entry because the totality of the circumstances—the near-barren house converted into a makeshift strip club, the partygoers' scattering and hiding at the sight of police, their vague…

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, holding that the officers had probable cause to arrest the partygoers and that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity. The Court based its probable‑cause finding on the totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test and concluded the officers could reasonably infer knowledge…

The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit, holding that officers had probable cause to arrest partygoers for unlawful entry at an unauthorized late-night party in a vacant house and that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity even assuming probable cause was absent.

The Supreme Court held that the word "tolled" in 28 U.S.C. §1367(d) means the state limitations period is suspended—stops running—while a supplemental state-law claim pends in federal court and for 30 days after dismissal, not that the plaintiff receives only a 30-day grace period to refile.