October 3, 2017

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 speaking and contracting with the government over policies that affect the employees’ profession? Should Abood v. Detroit Board of Education be overruled?

2. Fourth Amendment. Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027.
Under the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, may police enter residential property without a warrant, in order to search a vehicle on that property?

3. Fourth Amendment. Byrd v. United States, No. 16-1371.
For Fourth-Amendment purposes, does a driver have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter’s permission to drive the car, but is not an authorized driver under the rental agreement?

4. Assistance of Counsel. McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255.              
Is it unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused’s guilt over the accused’s express objection?

5. Self-Incrimination. City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt, No. 16-1495.
Does the Fifth Amendment permit a defendant’s compelled statements to be used at a pretrial probable-cause hearing?

6.  Appellate Procedure. Rosales-Mireles v. United States, No. 16-9493.
For a Court of Appeals to reverse a plain error of law that the appellant did not object to in the trial court, must the error “shock the conscience?”

7.  Appellate Procedure; Federal Courts. Hall v. Hall, No. 16-1150.
When a district court consolidates cases outside the MDL context, and enters judgment in less than all the cases, are those judgments immediately appealable separate from the other cases?

8. Labor and Employment. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 16-1362.
The Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from overtime-pay requirements any “salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.” Does this exempt a car dealership’s “service advisors,” who sell service solutions to the dealership’s customers?

9. Military Justice; Appointments Clause. Dalmazzi v. United States, No. 16-961; Cox v. United States, No. 16-1017; Ortiz v. United States, No. 16-1423.

• 10 U.S.C. 973(b) prohibits a military officer from holding a “civil office” that requires a presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Does this prohibit simultaneous service as a presidentially-appointed judge on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review and as an appellate judge on a military service’s court of criminal appeals?
• Are judges of the Court of Military Commission Review “principal officers” under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution? If so, does the Appointments Clause prevent “principal officers” from serving as inferior officers in a different capacity?
• May a defendant in a military service’s court of criminal appeals challenge the qualifications of a judge based on events that occurred after the court’s decision on the merits, but before the defendant moved for reconsideration?
• 28 U.S.C. sec. 1259 gives the U.S. Supreme Court certiorari jurisdiction over cases in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has granted a review. If the Armed Forces court initially grants review but later vacates the grant, does the Supreme Court still have jurisdiction to grant certiorari? 

GO TO SCOTUS BLOG