Round-up of Supreme Court Decisions – June 2022

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is our nation’s highest court. Its rulings impact our lives as they are considered “the law of the land” and binding on all other courts and in all states. To keep up-to-date and well informed about SCOTUS decisions and activity, below you will find a round-up of the SCOTUS decisions announced in June 2022. America’s Future will continue to provide updates in our weekly newsletters.

WEEK OF JUNE 5, 2022

Egbert v. Boule (No. 21-147 – Justice Thomas authored the opinion)
ISSUE: The issues in this case are: (1) Whether a damages action may be maintained against Border Patrol agents under a Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim; and (2) Whether a damages action may be maintained under a First Amendment unlawful retaliation claim.
RULING: As to both issues, No. “[The holding in] Bivens [v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971)] does not extend to create causes of action for Boule’s Fourth Amendment excessive-force claim and First Amendment retaliation claim” – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision is reversed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-147_g31h.pdf


Siegel v. Fitzgerald
(No. 21-441 – Justice Sotomayor authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether Congress’ enactment of a significant fee increase that exempted debtors in two States violates the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause.
RULING: Yes. “Congress’ enactment of a significant fee increase that exempted debtors in two States violated the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause” – The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision is reversed and this case is remanded back for adjudication consistent with this opinion.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-441_3204.pdf


Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon
(No. 21-309 – Justice Thomas authored the opinion)
ISSUE: “[W]hether, under §1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, [Appellant Latrice Saxon] belongs to a ‘class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce’ that is exempted from the Act’s coverage.” For the sake of clarification, §1 of the FAA “exempts from the statute’s ambit ‘contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce’.”
RULING: Yes. “Saxon belongs to a ‘class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce’ to which §1’s exemption applies” – The decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-309_o758.pdf


Gallardo v. Marstiller
(No. 20-1263 – Justice Thomas authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether the Medicaid Act permits states to seek “reimbursement from settlement payments [e.g. personal injury settlements] allocated for future medical expenses.”
RULING: Yes. “The Medicaid Act permits states to seek reimbursement from settlement payments allocated for future medical care” – The decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1263_g2bh.pdf

WEEK OF JUNE 12, 2022

Kemp v U.S. (No. 21-5726; Justice Thomas authored the opinion)
ISSUE: At issue is whether the term “mistake” as applied to a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure covers a judge’s error of fact or law or both or neither. The Court specified the issue as “the extent to which a judge’s legal errors qualify as ‘mistake[s]’ under Rule 60(b)(1) [of Federal Civil Procedure]”
RULING: “The term ‘mistake’ in Rule 60(b)(1) [of Federal Civil Procedure] includes a judge’s errors of law” – The decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-5726_5iel.pdf


Garland, Attorney General v Gonzalez
(No. 20-322 – Justice Alito authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Here, the Appellant asked the Court to determine whether “aliens who were detained by the Federal Government pursuant to 8 U. S. C. §1231(a)(6) are entitled to bond hearings after 6 months of detention. The Court explained the issue as, whether 8 U. S. C. §1252(f )(1) “deprives the District Courts of jurisdiction to entertain respondents’ requests for class-wide injunctive relief.”
RULING: “Section 1252(f )(1) of the INA deprives the District Courts of jurisdiction to entertain respondents’ requests for class-wide injunctive relief” – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision is reversed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-322_m6hn.pdf


Johnson, acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement v Arteaga-Martinez
(No. 19-896 – Justice Sotomayor authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether, pursuant to 8 U. S. C. §1231(a)(6), the Government is required “to provide noncitizens detained for six months with bond hearings in which the Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.”
RULING: No. “[8 U.S.C. §] 1231(a)(6) does not require the Government to provide noncitizens detained for six months with bond hearings in which the Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.” The Government has discretion to provide these type of hearings – The Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision is reversed and this case is remanded back for adjudication consistent with this opinion.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-896_2135.pdf


Denezpi v U.S.
(No. 20-7622 – Justice Barrett authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits “successive prosecutions under the same prosecuting authority.”
RULING: No. “The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them” – The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-7622_ljgm.pdf


ZF Automotive US, Inc. v Luxshare, LTD. and Alixpartners LLP v The Fund for Protection of Investors Rights in Foreign States
(No. 21-401 and No.21-518 – Justice Barrett authored both opinions which are published together in one document)
ISSUE: Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §1782, whether discovery can be ordered (for use in a foreign or international proceeding) by an adjudicative body (e.g., an arbitration panel) if it is not a governmental or an intergovernmental tribunal (i.e., a formal or informal type of court).
RULING: No. “Only a governmental or intergovernmental adjudicative body constitutes a ‘foreign or international tribunal’ in order to exercise governmental (i.e., judicial) authority under 28 U. S. C. §1782” – The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision are reversed.
LINK TO OPINIONS: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-401_2cp3.pdf


Viking River Cruises v Moriana
(No. 20-1573 – Justice Alito authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) “preempts a rule of California law that invalidates contractual waivers of the right to assert representative claims under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act.”
RULING: The FAA preempts California’s rule of law insofar as the law, as interpreted by a California court [Iskanian v CLS Transp. Los Angeles, LLC, 59 Cal. 4th 348 (2018)] precludes division of California’s Private Attorneys General Act actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.” – The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District is reversed and the case is remanded back for adjudication consistent with this decision.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf


Golan v Saada
(No. 20-1034 – Justice Sotomayor authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether a Court is “categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm”
RULING: No. “A court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm” – The Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded back for “on the merits” adjudication consistent with this vacation.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf


Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo v Texas
(No. 20-493 – Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether the Restoration Act bans, as a matter of federal law, certain gaming activities from taking place on tribunal lands or do “Native American Tribes possess ‘inherent sovereign authority over their members and territories.’”
RULING: As a matter of federal law, “the Restoration Act bans gaming activities from taking place on tribal lands [only to the extent the same] gaming activities [are] also banned in [the state/jurisdiction where the tribal land is situated]” – the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissal is vacated and the case is remanded back for “on the merits” adjudication consistent with this vacation.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf


American Hospital Association v Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services
(No. 20-1114 – Justice Kavanaugh authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether judicial review of Medicare’s reimbursement rates to hospitals is permitted under the Medicare Act and, if so, whether the Medicare Act permits varying reimbursement rates to hospitals without adequate justification for the differing rates of reimbursement.
RULING: Yes and no. Here, the case regards differing reimbursement rates Medicare pays to certain hospitals under the 340B Drug Discount Program. The Court ruled, as follows: (1) “The statute does not preclude judicial review of HHS’s reimbursement rates,” and (2) Absent a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs, HHS may not vary the reimbursement rates only for 340B hospitals.” – The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded back for adjudication consistent with this decision.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf


George v McDonough, Secretary of Veteran Affairs
(No. 21-234 – Justice Barrett authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether a statutory exception allowing for extraordinary relief upon a showing of “clear and unmistakable error” can be applied if a person who is entitled to certain benefits connected to military service has “exhausted all appeal rights based upon an agency regulation that, although unchallenged at the time, is later deemed contrary to law.”
RULING: “The invalidation of a [Veteran Affairs] regulation after a veteran’s benefits decision becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief based on clear and unmistakable error” – Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf


Arizona v City and County of San Francisco, California
(No. 21-1775 – per curium dismissal)
LINK TO DISMISSAL: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1775_4425.pdf

WEEK OF JUNE 19, 2022

Carson v Makin (No. 20-1088 – Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether “Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause.”
RULING: Yes. “Maine’s ‘nonsectarian’ requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause”– The decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf


Shoop, Warden v Twyford
(No. 21-511 – Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion)

ISSUE: “Whether the District Court’s order is ‘necessary or appropriate in aid of’ the federal court’s resolution of the prisoner’s habeas case.”
Here, pursuant to the All Writs Act [i.e.28 U. S. C. §1651(a)], which “authorizes federal courts to ‘issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law,’” the Court reviewed a post-conviction/post-sentencing District Court order compelling the state of Ohio to transport petitioner-prisoner from prison to a medical facility, without due consideration to the usefulness of the order to the petitioner-prisoner’s habeas case, for diagnostic testing petitioner-prisoner claimed would show evidence of a brain injury he sustained as a teenager without evincing the usefulness of the order.
RULING: “A transportation order that allows a prisoner to search for new evidence is not “necessary or appropriate in aid of” a federal court’s adjudication of a habeas corpus action when the prisoner has not shown that the desired evidence would be admissible in connection with a particular claim for relief.” – The decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-511_o75p.pdf


U.S. v Washington
(No. 21-404 – Justice Breyer authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether “[the state of] Washington’s [workers’ compensation] law facially discriminates against the Federal Government and its contractors. Because [the law] does not clearly and unambiguously waive the Federal Government’s immunity from discriminatory state laws, Washington’s law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.”
RULING: Yes. “Washington’s law facially discriminates against the Federal Government and its contractors. Because §3172 does not clearly and unambiguously waive the Federal Government’s immunity from discriminatory state laws, Washington’s law is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.” The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-404_i5ea.pdf


U.S. v Taylor
(No. 20-1459 – Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether an attempted Hobbs Act robbery “qualifies as a ‘crime of violence’ under §924(c)(3)(A) [if] no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.”
RULING: No. An attempted Hobbs Act robbery “does not qualify as a ‘crime of violence’ under §924(c)(3)(A) because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.”
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1459_n7ip.pdf


Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v Davita, Inc.
(No. 20-1641 – Justice Kavanaugh authored the opinion)

ISSUE: “Whether a group health plan that provides limited benefits for outpatient dialysis—but does so uniformly for all plan participants—violates the Medicare Secondary Payer statute.”
RULING: No. A group health plan that provides limited benefits for outpatient dialysis does not violate the Medicare Secondary Payer statute “MSP” as long as the group health plan does not “take into account that an individual is entitled to eligible” for Medicare due to end-stage renal disease (“ESRD”) and does not differentiate health care benefits it provides between individuals having ESRD and those who do not have ESRD. – The decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1641_3314.pdf


New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police
(No. 20-843 – Justice Thomas authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether New York’s “proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.”
RULING: Yes. “New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense.” – The decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf


Vega v Tekoh
(No. 20-499 – Justice Thomas authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether a violation of the Miranda rules “provides a basis for a §1983 claim [for money damages against the officer who obtained the statement]”
RULING: No. “A violation of the Miranda rules does not provide a basis for a §1983 claim [for money damages against the officer who obtained the statement].” – The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-499_gfbh.pdf


Nance v Ward, Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections
(No. 20-439 – Justice Kagan authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether 42 U. S. C. §1983 is “an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner’s method-of-execution claim where…the prisoner proposes an alternative method not authorized by the State’s death-penalty statute”
RULING: Yes. 42 U. S. C. §1983 is “an appropriate vehicle for a prisoner’s method-of-execution claim where…the prisoner proposes an alternative method not authorized by the State’s death-penalty statute” – The decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-439_bp7c.pdf


Berger v North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
(No. 21-248 – Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether “legislative leaders are entitled to intervene in a litigation regarding a legal challenge against a voter-ID law because without their participation, important state interests would not be adequately represented.”
RULING: Yes. Based upon the specific fact-pattern of this case, the legislative leaders petitioning the SCOTUS for relief are entitled to intervene in litigation to protect state interests.– The decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-248_4fc5.pdf


Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health v Jackson Women’s Health Organization
(No. 19-1392 – Justice Alito authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether the Constitution confers a right to abortion or, if not, “whether Roe and Casey were wrongly decided.”
RULING: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives”– The decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Becerra, Secretary of Health And Human Services v Empire Health Foundation, for Valley Hospital Medical Center (No. 20-1312 – Justice Kagan authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether Medicare’s “disproportionate share hospital (“DSH”) adjustment” calculation, which increases a hospital’s reimbursement rate for every covered (i.e. reimbursable) inpatient stay, should include all people entitled to Medicare Part A that are over 65 or disabled as opposed to only the portion of these patients who receive covered care.
RULING: Under Medicare’s Part A program, for reimbursement rate calculation purposes “In calculating the Medicare fraction [of patients treated at a hospital seeking payment under Medicare Part A], individuals ‘entitled to [Medicare Part A] benefits’ are all those qualifying for the program, regardless of whether they receive Medicare payments for part or all of a hospital stay”– The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1312_j42l.pdf

 

Editors Note: Please check back for updates on the latest SCOTUS rulings. For information about SCOTUS, visit the Court’s website at https://www.supremecourt.gov.

WEEK OF JUNE 26, 2022

Xiulu Ruan v United States (No. 20-1410 – Justice Breyer authored the opinion)
ISSUE: Whether the burden of proof, in a criminal case, shifts to the government if the defendant is authorized to act, but acted in a manner outside the scope of the authorization. In other words, how does a court apply the “knowingly or intentionally” mens rea standard under 21 U.S.C. § 841 in light of the ‘except as authorized’ clause.”
RULING: “[21 U.S.C.] Section 841’s ‘knowingly or intentionally’ mens rea applies to the statute’s ‘except as authorized’ clause. Once a defendant meets the burden of producing evidence that his or her conduct was ‘authorized,’ the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.” – The decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1410_1an2.pdf


Concepcion v United States (No. 20-1650 – Justice Sotomayor authored the opinion)
ISSUE:
Whether “the First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence.”
RULING: Yes. “The First Step Act allows district courts to consider intervening changes of law or fact in exercising their discretion to reduce a sentence” – The decision of the First Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1650_new_4gci.pdf


Kennedy v Bremerton School District
(No. 21-418 – Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether “the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal.”
RULING: Yes. “The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression” – The decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf


Torres v Texas Department of Public Safety
(No. 20-603 – Justice Breyer authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether “by ratifying the Constitution, the States agreed their sovereignty would yield to the national power to raise and support the Armed Forces. Congress may exercise this power to authorize private damages suits against nonconsenting States.”
RULING: Yes. “By ratifying the Constitution, the States agreed their sovereignty would yield to the national power to raise and support the Armed Forces. Congress may exercise this power to authorize private damages suits against nonconsenting States.” – The decision of the Court Of Appeals of Texas, Thirteenth District is reversed and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-603_o758.pdf


Oklahoma v Castro-Huerta
(No. 21-429 – Justice Breyer authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether “the Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.”
RULING: Yes. “The Federal Government and the State have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country.” – The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma is reversed and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-429_8o6a.pdf


Biden v Texas
(No. 21-954 – Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion)

ISSUE: Whether the Government’s rescission of the Migrant Protection Protocols (“MPP”) violated 8 U. S. C. §1225 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”).”
RULING: No. “The Government’s rescission of MPP did not violate section 1225 of the INA, and the October 29 Memoranda constituted final agency action.”– The decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf


West Virgina v Environmental Protection Agency
(consolidated with Docket Nos. 20-1531, 20-1778 and 20-1780 – Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion

ISSUE: Whether “this case remains justiciable notwithstanding the Government’s contention that no petitioner has Article III standing, given EPA’s [Environmental Protection Agency] stated intention not to enforce the Clean Power Plan and to instead engage in new rulemaking.”
RULING: Yes. “This case remains justiciable notwithstanding the Government’s contention that no petitioner has Article III standing, given EPA’s stated intention not to enforce the Clean Power Plan and to instead engage in new rulemaking.”– The decision of the Court Of Appeals For The District of Columbia Circuit is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf

Share Now