Bissonnette v LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC (23-51)
ISSUE: Whether a transportation worker must work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under §1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq.
RULING: No. “A transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under §1 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. §1 et seq..” – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-51_6647.pdf
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L. P. (22-1165)
ISSUE: Whether pure omissions are actionable under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5(b).
RULING: No. “Pure omissions are not actionable under SEC Rule 10b–5(b), which makes it unlawful to omit material facts in connection with buying or selling securities when that omission renders ‘statements made’ misleading” – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1165_10n2.pdf
Sheetz v El Dorado County (22-1074)
ISSUE: Whether the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause distinguishes between legislative and/or administrative land-use permit conditions.
RULING: No. The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions. – The judgement of the Court of Appeal of California, Third Appellate District is vacated, and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1074_bqmd.pdf
Devillier v Texas (22-913)
ISSUE: Whether owners of property north of U. S. Interstate Highway 10 adversely affected by the flood evacuation barrier constructed by Texas should be permitted on remand to pursue their Takings Clause claims through the cause of action available under Texas law.
RULING: Yes. “Owners of property north of U. S. Interstate Highway 10 adversely affected by the flood evacuation barrier constructed by Texas should be permitted on remand to pursue their Takings Clause claims through the cause of action available under Texas law.”– The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-913_3204.pdf
Rudisill v. McDonough (22-888)
ISSUE: Whether “servicemembers who, through separate periods of service, accrue educational benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills may use either one, in any order, up to 38 U. S. C. §3695(a)’s 48-month aggregate-benefits cap.”
RULING: Yes. “Servicemembers who, through separate periods of service, accrue educational benefits under both the Montgomery and Post-9/11 GI Bills may use either one, in any order, up to 38 U. S. C. §3695(a)’s 48-month aggregate-benefits cap.” – The judgement out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-888_1b8e.pdf
McIntosh v. United States (22-7386)
ISSUE: Whether a district court’s failure to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing prohibits a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on appellate review.
RULING: No. “A district court’s failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B)’s requirement to enter a preliminary order imposing criminal forfeiture before sentencing does not bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on appellate review.” – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-7386_10n2.pdf
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (22-193)
ISSUE: Whether an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show significant harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment.
RULING: No. “An employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant.” – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is vacated, and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-193_q86b.pdf
FBI v Fikre (22-1178)
ISSUE: Whether, after unlawfully placing plaintiff’s identity (a U.S. citizen) on the “No Fly List,” the government’s removal of the plaintiff’s identity from the “No Fly List” renders the issue moot.
RULING: No. “The government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that Mr. Fikre’s removal from the government’s No Fly List mooted his 42 U. S. C. §1983 case because its declaration did not disclose the conduct that landed Mr. Fikre on the No Fly List and did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.” – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-1178_p8k0.pdf
Wilkinson v Garland (22-666)
ISSUE: Whether an immigration judge’s discretionary decision regarding cancellation of removal and adjustment to lawful permanent status is reviewable as a mixed question of law and fact.”
RULING: Yes. The Immigration Judge’s discretionary decision determining eligibility for cancellation of removal is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(D). – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-666_new_7758.pdf
O’Connor-Ratcliff v Garnier (22-324)
ISSUE: Whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social-media account, when the official uses the account to feature their job and communicate about job-related matters with the public, but does not do so pursuant to any governmental authority or duty.
RULING: It depends. Here, the SCOTUS vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case in light of Lindke v. Freed, Dkt. No. 22-611. (This decision was published on March 15, 2024, i.e., the same date as Lindke v Freed. See below for the Lindke v Freed ruling.)
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-324_09m1.pdf
Lindke v Freed (22-611)
ISSUE: Whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action.
RULING: It depends. “A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.”– The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is vacated and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-611_ap6c.pdf
Pulsifer v US (22-340)
ISSUE: “Whether the ‘and’ in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) means ‘and,’ so that a defendant satisfies the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3-point offense, and (C) a 2-point offense; or can a defendant satisfy the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3- point offense, or (C) a 2-point violent offense.”
RULING: “A criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief…only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions.” – The judgement out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-340_p86a.pdf
Trump v Anderson (23-719)
ISSUE: Whether a state can enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates?
RULING: No. “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against Federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Trump excluded from the 2024 Presidential primary ballot.” – The judgment out of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-429_h315.pdf
McElrath v Georgia (22-721)
ISSUE: Whether the jury’s verdict that the defendant was not guilty of first degree murder by reason of insanity “constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.”
RULING: Yes. “[t]he jury’s verdict that the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity of malice murder constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury’s other verdicts.”– The judgment out of the Supreme Court of Georgia is reversed, and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-721_kjfl.pdf
Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co. (22-500)
ISSUE: Whether choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are “presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law.”
RULING: Yes. “Choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable in this case.”– The judgment of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-500_7k47.pdf
Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz (22-846)
ISSUE: Whether a consumer may sue a federal agency for violations of the Federal Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996 (FCRA).
RULING: Yes. “A consumer may sue a federal agency under 15 U. S. C. §§1681(n) and 1681(o) for defying the terms of the FCRA.”– The judgement out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-846_2co3.pdf
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC (22-660)
ISSUE: Whether a whistleblower seeking to invoke the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act must prove “that the employer acted with ‘retaliatory intent’.”
RULING: No. “A whistleblower seeking to invoke the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act—18 U. S. C. §1514A(a)—must prove that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that the employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”– The judgement out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-660_7648.pdf
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer (22-429)
ISSUE: Whether a voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, by an original plaintiff in a civil action, renders the issue(s) initially brought to the court in a complaint, as moot, and therefore no longer ripe for judgment.
RULING: Yes. Because the respondent, Ms. Laufer, voluntarily dismissed her pending suits under the ADA, the case filed by Ms. Laufer against Acheson is moot. The Court noted, as follows: “We emphasize, however, that we might exercise our discretion differently in a future [similarly situated] case.”– The judgement out of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-429_h315.pdf
