Search

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 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 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 An abortion clinic and two abortion doctors sued Kentucky state officials to halt Kentucky H.B. 454, which criminalized the most common second-trimester abortion. The state attorney general renounced authority to enforce the law and withdrew from the case, leaving only the secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family Services to defend the law. The district court and a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck the law. The secretary declined to seek en banc review at the Sixth Circuit or to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The attorney general--a different one than before--then moved to intervene to do so., Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C. Docket No. 20-601 Argument Date: October 12, 2021 From: The Sixth Circuit Introduction Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Federal law creates a three-tier sentencing structure for certain drug offenses. Tiers 1 and 2, the top tiers, provide sentences for drug crimes involving specified amounts of crack cocaine. Tier 3, the lowest tier, provides a sentence for drug crimes involving an amount of crack cocaine 'except as provided' in Tiers 1 and 2. In 2010, Congress, out of concern about the infamous 100-to-1 powder-to-crack cocaine ratio, increased the amount of crack required in Tiers 1 and 2; by default, this also increased the amount of crack covered in Tier 3. In 2018, Congress made these changes retroactive to offenses committed before 2010, but only to those offenses 'the statutory penalties for which were modified' by the changes in 2010., Terry v. United States Docket No. 20-5904 Argument Date: May 4, 2021 From: The Eleventh Circuit Introduction In 2008, Tarahrick Terry was convicted of possession with intent to distribute crack [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Two plainclothes officers acting under federal authority wrongly identified James King as a criminal suspect when they saw King near a gas station that the actual suspect regularly visited. As the officers questioned and searched King, King thought they might be mugging him, and he attempted to flee. The officers caught King and severely beat him. King sued the United States for the officers' torts under the Federal Tort Claims Act, and he sued the individual officers for violations of his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed his claims, but the Sixth Circuit revitalized his claims against the individual officers for violations of his constitutional rights., Brownback v. King Docket No. 19-546 Argument Date: November 9, 2020 From: The Sixth Circuit Introduction A person who is injured by the actions of a federal officer can sue [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE As part of an ongoing criminal investigation, the New York County District Attorney's Office issued a grand jury subpoena to Mazars USA, LLP, President Trump's accounting firm, for records and materials related to President Trump, including his tax returns. President Trump sued to stop Mazars from releasing his tax returns, arguing that as president he enjoys absolute immunity from any criminal process., Trump v. Vance Docket No. 19-635 Argument Date: May 12, 2020 From: The Second Circuit INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court has held that the president enjoys certain privileges and immunities from [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE As part of an ongoing criminal investigation, the New York County District Attorney's Office issued a grand jury subpoena to Mazars USA, LLP, President Trump's accounting [...]

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross Jr. decided to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census questionnaire. He claimed this was in response to a request by the Department of Justice for citizenship data in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. But a Census Bureau analysis showed that the question would depress the census response rate for noncitizen and Hispanic households, resulting in lower-quality census data, and that there were better ways to provide the DOJ with the information that it sought. Moreover, evidence provided by the Department revealed that Ross had considered the question long before the DOJ request, had consulted with others in the administration about it, and had engineered the DOJ request., Docket No. 18-966 Argument Date: April 23, 2019 From: The Southern District of New York INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Enumeration Clause and the Census Act, the secretary of commerce conducts [...]

INTRODUCTION Voting-rights organizations and individual voters sued North Carolina, arguing that the state's map was an impermissible partisan gerrymander. The three-judge district court ruled that the plaintiffs had standing to [...]

INTRODUCTION Under the state action doctrine, the First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies only against the government; it does not apply against private actors. But [...]

INTRODUCTION An 1868 Treaty between the United States and the Crow Tribe set aside land in present-day Montana for the Tribe's Reservation and ceded Tribe land in present-day Wyoming to [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE In 2001, Marcel Fashion Group, Inc., sued Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., for violating its trademark. The parties settled the case and entered into a settlement agreement that, among other things, released Lucky from certain trademark claims in the future. In 2005, Marcel again sued Lucky for trademark violations. Lucky did not raise a defense based on the release, and Marcel prevailed. In 2011, Marcel yet again sued Lucky for ongoing trademark violations. This time, however, Lucky raised a defense based on the release., Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group, Inc. Docket No. 18-1086 Argument Date: January 13, 2020 From: The Second Circuit INTRODUCTION Under res judicata, a plaintiff is barred from [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE James McKinney was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. He appealed his sentence to the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to consider mitigating evidence of his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Arizona Supreme Court rejected this claim. McKinney later filed a habeas corpus action in federal court, and the Ninth Circuit ultimately ruled in his favor. The state filed a motion in the Arizona Supreme Court for a new independent review of McKinney's sentence. The state Supreme Court reconsidered the evidence originally submitted at trial and affirmed McKinney's death sentence., McKinney v. Arizona Docket No. 18-1109 Argument Date: December 11, 2019 From: The Arizona Supreme Court INTRODUCTION James McKinney contends that after the Ninth Circuit ruled in his favor, he [...]

In May, 2013, police officers in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, found Gerald Mitchell apparently intoxicated near Lake Michigan. Mitchell's van was nearby. Officers administered a breath test on site, and then drove Mitchell to the police station. Officers then drove Mitchell to the hospital for a blood draw. Although Mitchell was by that time unconscious, an officer read Mitchell a statement required by Wisconsin's 'informed-consent' law and ordered hospital personnel to administer a blood draw. Results showed a blood-alcohol content of .222. Based on this evidence, Mitchell was charged and convicted of driving while intoxicated., Docket No. 18-6210 Argument Date: April 23, 2019 From: The Supreme Court of Wisconsin INTRODUCTION Wisconsin law imputes consent for a blood-alcohol test to any person who drives on a [...]

North Carolina sought to tax The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust for income that the Trust earned from 2005 to 2008. The state claimed that it had authority to tax the trust based on the fact that the Trust beneficiaries, Kaestner and her children, lived in North Carolina during that time. But the beneficiaries' residency in North Carolina was the only connection between the Trust and the state: the Trust itself was established in New York, and the trustee lived in Connecticut., Docket No. 18-457 Argument Date: April 16, 2019 From: The Supreme Court of North Carolina INTRODUCTION The Due Process Clause requires an entity to have some connection with a state [...]

INTRODUCTION The Hobbs Act provides for direct judicial review of final orders of certain agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission. The Act sets out procedural requirements for a 'party aggrieved' [...]

INTRODUCTION The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The court held that the state intended to burden certain voters based on their political affiliation and that the districting [...]

INTRODUCTION The Supreme Court ruled in 1979 in Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, that a state may be sued in another state's courts without its consent. The Board argues [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE David Anthony Taylor was convicted of two counts under the federal Hobbs Act for participating in robberies or attempted robberies of drugs and drug-related items. The [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE George Luna Torres, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, was charged with inadmissibility of an alien upon his return from a trip abroad, based [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Kevan Brumfield was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After exhausting his direct appeals, Brumfield filed a postconviction petition in state court. As that [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE The Affordable Care Act (ACA) provides a federal tax credit to low- and moderate-income individuals who purchase health insurance 'through an Exchange established by the State....' [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Kanishka Berashk, a citizen and resident of Afghanistan, filed a visa application with the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan, based on his marriage to Fauzia Din, [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Arizona voters amended the state constitution to move congressional redistricting authority from the state legislature to a new and independent commission. After the 2010 census, the [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Officer Morgan Struble pulled Dennys Rodriguez over for driving briefly on the shoulder. After issuing Rodriguez a warning ticket for the violation, Officer Struble detained Rodriguez [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Retail natural gas purchasers filed a series of class-action lawsuits against natural gas companies for conspiring to manipulate retail gas prices. The manipulation contributed to the [...]

CASE AT A GLANCE Under the First Amendment, content-based restrictions on speech are ordinarily subject to strict judicial scrutiny. This means that laws and regulations that limit speech based on [...]