On June 22, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided Carpenter v. U.S., No. 16-402, holding that law enforcement, absent exigent circumstances, must get a warrant to obtain cell-site location information (CSLI) that...more
6/25/2018
/ Carpenter v US ,
Cell Phones ,
Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) ,
Criminal Convictions ,
Electronic Records ,
Electronically Stored Information ,
Exigent Circumstances ,
Fourth Amendment ,
Geolocation ,
Location Data ,
Probable Cause ,
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Third-Party ,
Warrantless Searches
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, No. 17-530, holding that a railroad company’s employee stock options are not taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act...more
6/22/2018
/ Appeals ,
Compensation & Benefits ,
Employee Stock Purchase Rights ,
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) ,
Non-Taxable Income ,
Payment-In-Kind ,
Railroad Retirement Tax Act (RRTA) ,
Remand ,
Remuneration ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Stock Options ,
Taxable Income ,
Wisconsin Central Ltd v United States
On June 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 17-130, holding that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative law judges are subject to the U.S....more
6/22/2018
/ Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Administrative Proceedings ,
Appeals ,
Appointments Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Enforcement Actions ,
Final Written Decisions ,
Lucia v SEC ,
Officers of the United States ,
Remand ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) ,
Securities Violations ,
Special Trial Judges (STJs)
On June 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494, holding that states can require out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax on goods shipped to the state, even if...more
6/22/2018
/ Appeals ,
Commerce Clause ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Internet Retailers ,
Interstate Commerce ,
Out-of-State Companies ,
Physical Presence Test ,
Quill ,
Reversal ,
Sales & Use Tax ,
SCOTUS ,
South Dakota v. Wayfair ,
Substantial Nexus
On May 29, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Lagos v. United States, No. 16-1519, holding that the federal law making restitution to victims of certain federal crimes mandatory does not apply to victims’...more
On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Upper Skagit Indiana Tribe v. Lundgren, No 17-387, holding that its prior decision in County of Yakima v. Confederated Tribes and Bands of Yakima Nation, 502...more
5/22/2018
/ Action to Quiet Title ,
In Rem Jurisdiction ,
Indian General Allotment Act ,
Jurisdiction ,
Land Owners ,
Land Purchases ,
Native American Issues ,
SCOTUS ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Upper Skagit Indiana Tribe v Lundgren ,
Vacated ,
WA Supreme Court
On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285, holding that the Federal Arbitration Act mandates the enforcement of arbitration agreements providing for individualized...more
On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, No 15-1509, holding that a bankruptcy court’s determination of whether a set of facts demonstrated an arms-length...more
3/6/2018
/ Appellate Review ,
Arms Length Transactions ,
Bankruptcy Code ,
Bankruptcy Court ,
Chapter 11 ,
Clear Error Standard ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Cramdown ,
De Novo Standard of Review ,
Debtor-Creditor ,
Non-Statutory Insider Status ,
Reaffirmation ,
Reorganizations ,
SCOTUS ,
US Bank National Association v Village at Lakeridge
On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Texas v. New Mexico, No. 141 Orig., holding that the United States may pursue the Rio Grande Compact claims it has pleaded as an intervenor in a water rights...more
On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Patchak v. Zinke, No. 16-498. No opinion commanded a majority of the Court, but six justices concluded that the plaintiff’s lawsuit under the Indian...more
3/1/2018
/ Appeals ,
Article III ,
Casinos ,
Dismissals ,
Governmental Immunity ,
Indian Gaming ,
Indian Reorganization Act ,
Jurisdiction ,
Lack of Authority ,
Land Owners ,
Land Trusts ,
Legislative Process ,
Patchak v Zinke ,
SCOTUS ,
Secretary of the Interior ,
Separation of Powers
On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., No. 16-784, holding that the only relevant transfer for purposes of the securities safe harbor provision...more
On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Jennings v. Rodriguez, holding that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1225(b), 1226(a), and 1226(c) do not give detained aliens the right to periodic bond hearings during the course of their...more
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...more
1. Freedom of Speech; Labor and Employment. Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, No. 16-1466.
May a government require its employees to pay agency fees to an exclusive representative for...more
On May 30, 2017, the Supreme Court decided BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, No. 16-405, holding that § 56 of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) does not address personal jurisdiction and thus limiting the fora in which a...more
On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court decided TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, holding that, for purposes of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a domestic corporation resides only in...more
On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, No. 16-254. The Court held that the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (Hague...more
Zubik v. Burwell and several consolidated cases challenged a federal regulation requiring employers to cover certain contraceptives as part of their health plans unless they submit a form either to their insurer or to the...more