January 16, 2018

1. Redistricting. Abbott v. Perez, Nos. 17-586 & 17-626.
Do Texas’s Congressional districts treat racial minorities unconstitutionally? When the district court ordered the parties to appear at a hearing to redraw the districts unless the Governor called a special legislative session for that purpose, was that an appealable injunction?

2. Patent Law. WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011.
When a defendant violates 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) by supplying components of a patented invention from the United States for combination outside the United States in an infringing manner, may the plaintiff recover lost profits that it would have earned outside of the United States if the infringement had not occurred?

3. Bankruptcy. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-1215.
The Bankruptcy Code prohibits the discharge of a debt for assets the debtor obtained fraudulently, unless the fraud was “respecting the debtor’s ... financial condition.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Under what circumstances can a statement about a specific asset—for instance, a statement offered as evidence of the debtor’s ability to repay a debt—qualify for the “financial condition” exception?

4. Foreign Relations; Federal Courts. Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., No. 16-1220.
When a federal court is determining foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, and the foreign sovereign appears in court to offer an interpretation of its law, is the court bound to defer to that statement?

5. Criminal Restitution. Lagos v. United States, No. 16-1519.
For many crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) requires a convicted defendant to pay back a victim’s “expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense.” Does that include a victim’s costs for internal investigations and other private expenses that came before the government began a criminal prosecution?

6. Appointments Clause; Securities Regulation. Lucia v. SEC, No. 17-130.
Are the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative law judges “officers of the United States” who must be appointed pursuant to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause?

7. Indian Law. Washington v. United States, No. 17-269.

1. Federal treaties with Northwestern Indian tribes guarantee a “right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations .... in common with all citizens.” Does this promise that there will be enough fish to provide a moderate living to the tribes?
2. When the federal government told Washington State to design its culverts a certain way, was it equitably barred from later claiming in court that the culvert design violated treaties with Indian tribes?
3. Will replacing hundreds of culverts have enough of an impact on tribal fisheries to require Washington to spend several billion dollars to do so?

8. Immigration Law. Pereira v. Sessions, No. 17-459.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, an alien must have been continuously present in the United States for a specified amount of time before receiving a “notice to appear [for immigration proceedings] under section 1229(a).” Section 1229(a) defines a “notice to appear” as specifying “the time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” Does a document entitled “notice to appear” stop the cancellation-of-removal-eligibility clock if it lacks this “time and place” information?

9. State Taxes; Interstate Commerce. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494.
May a State require a retailer that is not physically present within its boundaries to collect sales tax on sales into the State? Should Quill Corp. v. North Dakota’s contrary holding be overturned?

10. Railroads. Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, No. 17-530.
Whether stock that a railroad transfers to its employees is taxable “money remuneration” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1).

11. Criminal Sentencing. Chavez-Meza v. United States, No. 17-5639.
When a district court decides not to grant a request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (involving retroactive changes to the Sentencing Guidelines), must it provide some explanation for its decision when the reasons are not otherwise apparent from the record?