Search

CASE AT A GLANCE Federal law makes it a crime to possess a 'machinegun.' 18 U.S.C. [section] 922(o)(1). Federal law then defines 'machinegun' as 'any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' 26 U.S.C. [section] 5845(b)., Introduction The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), the agency responsible for interpreting the definition of 'machinegun,' issued a final rule in December 2018 that defined an automatic [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Alex Contero, Saul Hymes, and Ilana Harwayne-Gidansky, the plaintiffs in this case, have mortgages on their New York homes through Bank of America, a federally chartered bank. Like many mortgages, the plaintiffs' mortgages require them to deposit funds into escrow accounts to cover property taxes and home insurance. New York law requires banks to pay at least 2 percent annual interest on escrow-account balances, in order to prevent mortgage lenders from effectively obtaining an interest-free loan from borrowers. Bank of America did not pay, however, and the plaintiffs sued. In defense, Bank of America argued that New York's law was preempted by the National Bank Act., Introduction Section 25b of the National Bank Act (NBA) preempts a state consumer financial law when the state law 'prevents or significantly interferes with the exercise by the national bank [...]

CASE ATA GLANCE In 2021, Florida and Texas both enacted laws that restricted how social-media platforms could moderate content provided by users of the platforms. Moreover, both states' laws required platforms to notify a user when they modified that user's content and explain why they modified the content., Introduction NetChoice sued separately to halt Florida's and Texas's laws, arguing that they violated the First Amendment. The Eleventh Circuit ruled for NetChoice, but the Fifth Circuit ruled for Texas. [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Colorado voters sued former President Donald J. Trump and the Colorado secretary of state in state court seeking an order excluding Trump from the state's 2024 presidential primary ballot. The plaintiffs argued that Trump was not qualified for the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment because of his role in the insurrection on January 6, 2021. They claimed that the secretary of state would commit a 'wrongful act' under state election law if she placed his name on the ballot., Introduction The Colorado Supreme Court held that former President Donald J. Trump was disqualified from holding federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision prohibits any person [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The county of El Dorado, California, adopted a plan that imposed a fee on any landowner who sought to develop their property. The county implemented the fee in order to finance the construction of new roads and to widen existing roads related to the proposed development. The county calculated the fee according to a set and predetermined schedule, based on the location of the property and the type of proposed development. In 2016, the county imposed a fee of $23,420 on George Sheetz, who sought to build a home on his property. The county calculated the fee based on the location of the house (Zone 6) and the type of project (a single-family home). Otherwise, the county made no individualized determination that Sheetz's home would require new or expanded roads, or that the fee was proportional to the cost of any new or expanded roads. Sheetz sued, arguing that the fee amounted to an uncompensated taking in violation of the Takings Clause., Introduction Under Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), when the government requires a landowner to dedicate a [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act authorizes the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to require certain fishing vessels to carry on board an 'observer' to promote conservation of fishery resources and management of a 'fishery management plan.' But the Act does not specify who must pay for observers. NMFS adopted a regulation requiring fishing vessels to pay the cost of observers under certain circumstances. Fisheries sued, arguing that the Act did not authorize NMFS to adopt this regulation., Introduction Under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), federal courts defer to an agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Here, the lower federal courts [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Yonas Fikre sued the government for placing him on the No Fly List. During the litigation, the government removed Fikre from the list and said that it would not relist him 'based on currently available information.' The government then moved to dismiss the case as moot, but the Ninth Circuit rejected the motion., Introduction As a general matter, federal courts lack authority to hear cases that become moot, that is, when the underlying legal issue is no longer 'live,' or when 'the parties [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In July 2011, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System issued Regulation II, a final rule that capped the interchange fee that networks that process debit-card transactions can charge to merchants who accept their debit cards. In April 2021, merchant associations sued, arguing that Regulation II was invalid on its face. The government moved to dismiss the case for violating the six-year statute of limitations. In response, a new plaintiff, Corner Post, which only incorporated in 2017 and only started doing business in 2018, joined the case., Introduction As a general matter, federal law requires that a plaintiff file a civil suit against the United States 'within six years after the right of action first accrues.' 28 [...]

Introduction The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause prohibits racial gerrymandering (in which racial considerations predominate in a state's new districts) and racial vote dilution (in which circumstantial evidence shows that [...]

Introduction Most federal agencies receive their budgets through a direct annual appropriation by Congress. But by statute, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the CFPB, or just the Bureau) receives its [...]

Introduction In order to establish standing to sue, a plaintiff must demonstrate, among other things, that they suffered a personal and concrete injury. Acheson claims that Laufer failed to establish [...]

The Court issued two significant election-law rulings this term, both in the context of redistricting. One of the cases, Allen v. Milligan, addressed how plaintiffs can challenge a state legislature's congressional map under the Voting Rights Act. The other, Moore v. Harper, considered the sweep of a state legislature's authority to draw congressional districts under the Constitution's Elections Clause. In both cases, the Court rejected the novel and sweeping arguments of the state legislatures and ruled in favor of the voters., The Court's rulings in Allen v. Milligan and Moore v. Harper thus buck a recent trend at the Court to invite, entertain, and even adopt pathbreaking claims that fundamentally alter [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The Texas Department of Transportation erected a barrier between the opposing lanes of an interstate highway. The state designed the barriers to keep floodwaters on one side of the highway while keeping the other side dry for evacuations during a flood. The barrier caused floods on private land on the flood side of the highway. Landowners sued, seeking just compensation for their damaged land under the Takings Clause., Introduction As a general matter, a plaintiff cannot sue a state for constitutional violations in federal court. This case tests whether that general rule applies to claims under the Takings [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Gerald Groff served as a rural carrier associate in the United States Postal Service. In this role, Groff was a noncareer employee who provided coverage for absent career employees. When the Postal Service started Sunday deliveries pursuant to an agreement with Amazon, Groff, a self-described evangelical Christian, refused Sunday shifts, citing his religious belief that Sundays were reserved for worship and rest. The Postal Service attempted to schedule around Groff's Sunday absences, but this created tension with Groff's coworkers and extra work for the postmaster. Ultimately, the Postal Service disciplined Groff for missing scheduled Sunday shifts. Groff sued, arguing that the Postal Service discriminated against him because of his religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964., Groff v. DeJoy Docket No. 22-174 Argument Date: April 18, 2023 From: The Third Circuit Introduction Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits an employer from discriminating [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Jean Francois Pugin and Fernando Cordero-Garcia were lawful permanent residents in the United States when they committed crimes that touched on, but did not overlap in time with, a pending investigation or judicial proceeding. In particular, Pugin was an accessory after the fact to a felony, and Cordero-Garcia attempted to prevent or dissuade victims from reporting his underlying crimes. The Department of Homeland Security charged that Pugin and Cordero-Garcia were subject to removal from the United States because their crimes related to the obstruction of justice., Pugin v. Garland and Garland v. Fernando Cordero-Garcia Docket Nos. 22-23 and 22-331 Argument Date: April 17, 2023 From: The Fourth and Ninth Circuits Introduction Federal immigration law authorizes the [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE SuperValu and Safeway created discount price programs for prescription drugs. Participating customers paid a lower price than the corporations' standard retail price. The corporations nevertheless reported their standard retail price to the government when they submitted reimbursement claims to third-party insurers, including Medicare and Medicaid. Private individuals (known as relators) sued the corporations under the False Claims Act, alleging that the corporations 'knowingly' made false claims for payment to the government. The corporations argued that their claims were based on a reasonable interpretation of ambiguous legal requirements under the Medicare and Medicaid programs., United States ex rel. Shutte v. SuperValu, Inc. and United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. Docket Nos. 21-1326 and 22-111 Argument Date: April 18, 2023 From: The Seventh [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued summonses to certain banks to investigate how it might collect on a tax debt owed by Remo Polselli. The summonses sought account information of Hanna Karcho Polselli, Remo's wife, and two related law firms where Remo was a client. (The IRS believed that this information could help it locate Remo's assets.) The IRS did not inform Hanna or the law firms of the summonses. The banks did, however, and Hanna and the firms petitioned the court to quash the summonses., Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service Docket No. 21-1599 Argument Date: March 29, 2023 From: The Sixth Circuit Introduction As a general matter, when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS, or the [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Helaman Hansen operated an organization called Americans Helping America Chamber of Commerce. The organization falsely advised noncitizens that they could gain U.S. citizenship through adult adoption. The organization encouraged or induced two noncitizens to overstay their visas, all the while collecting fees from them. Hansen was convicted of violating a federal statute that criminalizes encouraging or inducing noncitizens to reside in the Unites States. He received a sentencing enhancement for violating this statute for the 'purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain.' Hansen moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that the federal law violated free speech. In particular, he argued that the federal law criminalized substantially more speech than the First Amendment allows., United States v. Hansen Docket No. 22-179 Argument Date: March 27, 2023 From: The Ninth Circuit Issue Does the federal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration criminalize a substantial [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Coinbase users sued the corporation for various violations of state and federal law. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration clause in its User Agreement, but the district courts rejected the motions. Coinbase appealed under a provision of the Federal Arbitration Act. The corporation also moved to stay the proceedings in the district courts pending the outcome of its appeals. But the courts denied those motions, too. This case involves those denials., Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski Docket No. 22-105 Argument Date: March 21, 2023, From: The Ninth Circuit Introduction Section 16(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes a party to immediately appeal [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control issued a regulation and orders that suspended the entry into the United [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Nohemi Gonzalez, a U.S. citizen and student studying in Paris, France, was murdered by terrorists in an ISIS attack on a Paris bistro. Gonzalez's estate and [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE To ensure that federal student loan borrowers were not 'in a worse position financially as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,' the secretary of education granted [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In 2016, Congress enacted the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act to address 'the most debilitating fiscal emergency' in Puerto Rico's history. As part of the act, Congress created the Financial Oversight and Management Board (the Board) for Puerto Rico as an entity within the government of Puerto Rico. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, a Puerto Rican nonprofit investigative media organization, sued the Board in federal court to obtain records and communications, pursuant to its right under the Puerto Rico Constitution. The Board argued that it enjoyed sovereign immunity from the suit, however, and that Congress did not abrogate its immunity in the act., Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc. Docket No. 22-96 Argument Date: January 11, 2023 From: The First Circuit Introduction The Supreme Court [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The Ohio National Guard and the union representing the Guard's dual-status technicians failed to renegotiate a collective bargaining agreement. The Guard stated that it was no longer bound by the agreement and moved to halt union dues deductions from the technicians. The union then filed four Unfair Labor Practice charges with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The Guard argued that the FLRA lacked jurisdiction over the dispute., Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority Docket No. 21-1454 Argument Date: January 9, 2023 From: The Sixth Circuit Introduction National Guard technicians are full-time civilian employees of [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Joseph Percoco served as the governor's executive deputy secretary to then New York governor Andrew Cuomo. He resigned that office in April 2014 to manage the governor's reelection campaign. During this period, he arranged through a lobbyist to receive monetary payments from a corporation in exchange for pressuring state officials to provide funding for the corporation without complying with a potentially expensive labor peace agreement. Percoco succeeded in pressuring officials to drop the requirement right around the time that he returned to his prior position in the Governor's Office., Percoco v. United States Docket No. 21-1158 Argument Date: November 28, 2022 From: The Second Circuit Introduction The federal honest-services-fraud statute makes it a crime for a person to communicate [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In November 2021, the North Carolina legislature adopted a new map for its congressional districts. The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that the map violated the state constitution; however, and pursuant to state law, a lower state court issued a temporary replacement map. State legislative leaders and other state officials challenged the state-courts' power to override the legislature's congressional map, arguing that the state-courts' actions violated the Elections Clause in the U.S. Constitution., Moore v. Harper Docket No. 21-1271 Argument Date: December 7, 2022 From: The North Carolina Supreme Court Introduction The Elections Clause says that a state's 'Legislature' has authority to regulate [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Lorie Smith is the sole owner of 303 Creative, a for-profit company that creates websites and other designs. Smith would like to expand her portfolio and create custom websites for weddings. She designed a web page to announce this service, with a disclaimer that she will only create websites for marriages between one man and one woman, consistent with her religious beliefs. She has not posted the page, however, because she believes that Colorado's antidiscrimination law would prohibit this message. She sued, arguing that Colorado's antidiscrimination law violates her First Amendment right to free speech., 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis Docket No. 21-476 Argument Date: December 5, 2022 From: The Tenth Circuit Introduction The First Amendment prohibits government from compelling speech and from regulating speech [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In September 2021, the Department of Homeland Security issued Guidelines that set priorities for the enforcement of federal immigration law. In particular, the Guidelines prioritized three classes of noncitizens for 'apprehension and removal': (1) noncitizens who pose 'a danger to national security,' for example, suspected terrorists; (2) noncitizens who pose a 'threat to public safety, typically because of serious criminal conduct'; and (3) noncitizens who pose a 'threat to border security,' that is, noncitizens who arrived in the United States after November 1, 2020. DHS set these priorities because Congress has not allocated sufficient resources for the agency to apprehend and remove all removable noncitizens. Texas and Louisiana sued to halt the Guidelines. The district court ruled in their favor and vacated the Guidelines nationwide. The Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court both declined to stay that ruling pending appeal., United States v. Texas Docket No. 22-58 Argument Date: November 29, 2022 From: The Fifth Circuit Introduction Federal immigration law, by its plain terms, requires the Department of Homeland Security [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiated enforcement actions against Axon Enterprise, Inc., and Michelle Cochran, respectively. Before those agencies issued final decisions, however, Axon and Cochran sued in federal district court to halt the administrative proceedings. Axon and Cochran have both argued that the administrative law judges (ALJs) who presided over their cases enjoyed statutory removal protections that violated the Constitution--in other words, that the ALJs, and therefore the agencies' enforcement actions, were unconstitutional., Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cochran Docket Nos. 21-86 and 21-1239 Argument Date: November 7, 2022 From: The Ninth Circuit (Axon) and [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Harvard College and the University of North Carolina both use race as one of many criteria in a holistic assessment of each individual applicant for admission. Both institutions use race in this way in order to help create intellectual diversity among their students and to promote a robust academic environment. Neither institution uses racial quotas or points. Both schools considered and adopted race-neutral alternatives to achieve broad diversity, but concluded that those alternatives alone would not achieve the diversity the schools sought. Both schools conduct ongoing reviews to assess the continuing need for their policies and available alternatives., Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina Docket Nos. 20-1199 and 21-707 Argument Date: [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Gorgi Talevski was a resident at Valparaiso Care and Rehabilitation (VCR), a nursing home in Indiana, in order to receive professional care for his dementia. VCR staff prescribed powerful psychotropic drugs to Talevski, causing his physical and mental conditions to deteriorate. They also transferred Talevski to another facility without his permission. Talevski's family sued VCR for violating Talevski's rights under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act (FNHRA)., Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion County v. Talevski Docket No. 21-806 Argument Date: November 8, 2022 From: The Seventh Circuit by Steven D. Schwinn University of Illinois Chicago School [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12, a measure that sets standards for housing sows in the production of pork and that bans the sale of whole pork meat (no matter where produced) that is inconsistent with these standards. The National Pork Producers Council sued, arguing that the measure impermissibly regulates out-of-state commercial activity in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, because nearly all pork production in the United States occurs outside of California., National Pork Producers Council v. Ross Docket No. 21-468 Argument Date: October 11, 2022 From: The Ninth Circuit Issues 1. Does Proposition 12 impermissibly regulate out-of-state activities in violation of [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In the wake of the 2020 census, Alabama enacted a map for its seven congressional districts. The map included just one district where racial minorities constituted a majority, even though black residents constitute 27 percent of Alabama's population, and even though the state could have drawn a second majority-minority district using traditional districting criteria. Plaintiffs sued, arguing that the districting scheme violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act., Merrill v. Milligan and Merrill v. Caster Docket No. 21-1086 and 21-1087 Argument Date: October 4, 2022 From: The Northern District of Alabama Introduction Section 2 of the Voting Rights [...]

There's no doubt, this term was a whopper. With rulings overturning the 50-year-old fundamental right to abortion, significantly expanding gun rights, sharply curtailing the administrative state, and more, this relatively newlycomprised Court wrought swift and seismic changes to constitutional law., Even among its titanic rulings this term, the Court's two cases on religious liberties held their own. The Court in these cases upended a decades-old precedent in one fell swoop. [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented the Migrant Protection Protocols, sometimes referred to as the Remain-in-Mexico policy. Under the policy, DHS returned unauthorized noncitizens who entered the United States through Mexico back to Mexico, rather than detaining them in the United States or releasing them into the United States, pending the outcome of their immigration proceedings. In 2021, during the Biden presidency, DHS revoked the policy. Texas and Missouri sued, arguing that the revocation was unlawful., Biden v. Texas Docket No. 21-954 Argument Date: April 26, 2022 From: The Fifth Circuit Introduction Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 'shall' [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In 2018, Washington enacted H.B. 1723, a workers' compensation law that applied only to federal contract workers (and not federal employees or state workers) who worked on cleanup of radioactive waste at a federal site. Unlike the state's standard workers' compensation program, H.B. 1723 creates a 'prima facie presumption' that any worker who contracts certain named 'diseases and conditions' has an 'occupational disease' that qualifies for workers' compensation. The presumption applies 'for the lifetime' of a worker, 'without regard to the date of last injurious exposure or claim filing.' The presumption may be rebutted only 'by clear and convincing evidence' that the condition had a different cause, unrelated to the federal site cleanup work., United States v. Washington Docket No. 21-404 Argument Date: April 18, 2022 From: The Ninth Circuit Introduction As a general matter, states cannot directly regulate the federal government, including federal [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The NAACP sued the North Carolina governor and State Board of Elections to halt the implementation of a state law, Senate Bill 824, that imposed voter-ID [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In 2007, Le Roy Torres, a U.S. Army reservist, was called to active duty and deployed to Iraq. While serving in Iraq, Torres suffered lung damage [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In 2015, the EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan, a set of standards for emissions from existing stationary sources like power plants. The plan included measures [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Robert Boule, the owner and operator of a small bed-and-breakfast inn in Blaine, Washington, along the border with Canada, sued Customs and Border Patrol Agent Erik [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In August 2019, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a rule that prohibited noncitizens who received certain public benefits from entering the United States or adjusting [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE A private organization and its founder asked the City of Boston to display 'the Christian flag' on a flagpole outside City Hall. The organization also hoped to sponsor an event at the site. The City had previously approved requests to temporarily replace its own flag with other flags. But these flags almost always represented foreign nations or significant events in Boston's history. The City never approved a religious flag. Out of concern that raising 'the Christian flag' could violate the Establishment Clause, the City rejected the request, and the organization and its founder sued., Shurtleff v. Boston Docket No. 20-1800 Argument Date: January 18, 2022 From: The First Circuit Introduction This case turns on whether a city's display of a flag on its flagpole [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an emergency temporary standard to protect workplace health and safety in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The standard gives employers with over 100 employees a choice (1) to require employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or (2) to require employees to wear masks and test for COVID-19 weekly., National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration Docket No. 21A244 Argument Date: January 7, 2022 From: The Sixth Circuit Introduction The federal Occupational [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The secretary of health and human services promulgated an interim final rule, without ordinary public notice-and-comment processes, that requires nearly all health-care workers at facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, unless they qualify for a medical or religious waiver. States sued, arguing that the secretary exceeded his statutory authority., Biden v. Missouri Docket Nos. 21A240 and 21A241 Argument Date: January 7, 2022 From: The Fifth and Eighth Circuits Introduction Federal law authorizes the secretary of health and human services [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Some school districts in Maine do not operate their own secondary public schools. State law authorizes these districts to pay for tuition for students to attend [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reduced reimbursement rates for prescription drugs under Medicare Part B for hospitals that provide medical care for underserved communities. HHS implemented the adjustment out of concern that the existing rates overcompensated these hospitals. HHS reckoned that its existing reimbursement rates reflected the average market price for drugs, but that these hospitals actually paid a deeply discounted price for the drugs. HHS said that its downward adjustment of reimbursement rates was designed to close the gap between the existing (market-based) reimbursement rate and the (deeply discounted) price that these hospitals actually paid for the drugs., American Hospital Association v. Becerra Docket No. 20-1114 Argument Date: November 30, 2021 From: The D.C. Circuit Introduction The Medicare statute authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Mississippi enacted legislation that prohibits doctors from performing an abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The law contains two exceptions, one for a 'medical emergency' and another for 'severe fetal abnormality.' Jackson Women's Health Organization, the only abortion provider in the state, and one of its doctors sued, arguing that Mississippi's ban creates an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion before viability in violation of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey., Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization Docket No. 19-1392 Argument Date: December 1, 2021 From: The Fifth Circuit Introduction Under Roe v. Wade, a woman has a fundamental right to [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The Austin Sign Code allows sign owners to digitize their on-premises signs (those that are located at the same site as the business or activity to which they relate). But it forbids owners from digitizing their off-premises signs (those that are not located at the same site as the business or activity to which they relate). Applying those regulations, the City denied permission to two corporations to digitize their off-premises signs., City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas Inc. Docket No. 20-1029 Argument Date: November 10, 2021 From: The Fifth Circuit Introduction Government speech regulations that are based [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE For at least 14 months between 2006 and 2007, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operated a surveillance program within the Muslim community in Southern California in order to identify potential terrorists. Members of the community sued, arguing that the program and its agents engaged in illegal searches and that the program and its agents illegally targeted members of the community because of their religion. The government moved to dismiss the claims under the state secrets privilege., Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga Docket No. 20-828 Argument Date: November 8, 2021 From: The Ninth Circuit Introduction The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary privilege with constitutional underpinnings [...]