Supreme Court of the United States, 2020

Justice Ginsburg delivered the unanimous Court’s opinion affirming the Eleventh Circuit. The Court held that ACCA’s definition of a state-law “serious drug offense” requires determining whether the offense’s elements necessarily entail the conduct specified in 18 U.S.C.

Justice Breyer delivered the unanimous opinion holding that Holguin-Hernandez preserved his appellate claim that his 12-month sentence was substantively unreasonable by advocating for a shorter sentence in the District Court.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito, held that receiving disclosures does not necessarily give an ERISA plaintiff actual knowledge of the information they contain. The three-year limitations period under 29 U.S.C.

Justice Kavanaugh concurs with the Court’s judgment in Shular v. United States and writes separately to explain why the rule of lenity does not apply. He reiterates the two‑part test for lenity—use of all traditional tools of statutory construction and the presence of grievous ambiguity—and concludes that the statute…

Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which affirmed the Eleventh Circuit’s judgment upholding Shular’s enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Court held that the statutory definition of a state-law “serious drug offense” requires a categorical inquiry into whether the offense’s…

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Alito, affirmed the dismissal of the parents’ damages claims, holding that Bivens does not extend to this cross-border shooting. The claims arose in a new context, and their implications for foreign relations, border security, and Congress’s treatment of injuries abroad counseled…

Justice Gorsuch delivered the unanimous opinion rejecting the Bob Richards federal common-law rule for allocating consolidated corporate tax refunds among affiliated corporations.

The Court, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, held that adjudication of a motion for relief from bankruptcy’s automatic stay constitutes a discrete proceeding, and an order unreservedly granting or denying that relief is final and immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

Justice Gorsuch concurs with the per curiam decision to remand the case. He agrees that the plaintiffs’ claim that ERISA fiduciaries could be liable for alternative actions taken in a non‑fiduciary capacity raises a pure question of law that should be addressed by the lower courts.