2021-2022 Court Term

Houston Community College System v. Wilson

In a 9-0 decision (opinion by Justice Gorsuch) the Court ruled that Houston Community College System’s censure of Wilson did not constitute a retaliatory action in violation of his First Amendment rights. The Court noted the considerable history of the use of censure in federal, state and local governing bodies and then examined the precedents that hold that a retaliation claim must show that the government took an “adverse action” in response to speech that “would have not been taken absent the retaliatory motive.” Under these precedents, the Court noted two factors: (1) Wilson was an elected official and “In this country, we expect elected representatives to shoulder a degree of criticism about their public service from their constituents and their peers – and to continue exercising their free speech rights when the criticism comes.” (2) The adverse action at issue concerns the conduct of public office. “The first Amendment surely promises an elected representative . . .the right to speak freely on questions of government policy. But just as surely, it cannot be used as a weapon to silence other representatives seeking to do the same.”

FBI v. Fazaga

In a 9-0 decision (opinion by Justice Alito) the Court held that section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 does not displace the state secrets privilege. Thus, federal district court judges are not authorized to hold hearings “in camera and ex parte” when a party to a section 1806(f) case claims that evidence must be excluded based on the state secrets privilege. First, the Court noted that the fact that FISA makes no reference to the state secrets doctrine is strong evidence that the availability of the state secrets privilege was not altered in any way by the enactment of FISA. The Court then noted that there is no clash between section 1806(f) and the state secrets privilege, since the statute and the privilege (1) require courts to conduct different inquiries, (2) authorize courts to award different forms of relief, and (3) direct the parties and the courts to follow different procedures. In conclusion the Court stated: “Congress did not eliminate, curtail or modify the state secrets privilege when it enacted Section 1806(f).”

Hemphill v. NY

In an 8-1 decision (opinion by Justice Sotomayor) the Court held that the admission of Morris’ plea agreement violated Hemphill’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. The Court held that while under the Sixth Amendment states are free to adopt procedural rules governing the exercise of a defendant’s right to confrontation, the door-opening principle (which allowed New York to enter evidence contrary to Hemphill’s assertion at trial that Morris was the shooter) is not procedural but rather is a substantive principle of evidence that dictates what material is relevant and admissible in a case. In conclusion, the Court stated: “The Confrontation Clause requires that the reliability and veracity of the evidence against a criminal defendant be tested by cross-examination, not determined by a trial court.” Justice Thomas dissented on technical grounds, noting that the Court did not have jurisdiction to review the lower court’s decision because Hemphill had not raised his Sixth Amendment claim in the New York Court of Appeals.

2020-2021 Court Term

Germany v. Philipp (decided on February 3, 2021):

The Court held that under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the taking by a government of its own nationals’ property does not involve “property taken in violation of international law” as required by the Act. Thus, the plaintiffs could not bring their suit under the Act for recovery of art taken by Nazi Germany. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Lange v. California (decided on June 23, 2021):

The Court held that pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect does not always or categorically qualify as an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry into a home. Thus, Mr. Lange gets another opportunity to exclude evidence of his intoxication taken when a police officer entered his garage without a warrant. Justice Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. Although Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the result, he filed a separate opinion (joined by Justice Alito) in which he argued that the Court’s earlier precedents established a general rule that hot pursuit justifies a warrantless entry, but that Mr. Lange should have an opportunity to argue that this is the sort of unusual case to which the general rule does not apply.

Nestle USA v. Doe (decided on June 17, 2021):

The Court held that to establish a case for the domestic application of the Alien Tort Statute, plaintiffs must allege more domestic conduct than general corporate activity. Thus, the plaintiffs (former child slaves in Cote D’Ivoire) were unable to pursue their case against Nestle USA in United States courts. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion of the Court in an 8-1 decision, to which Justice Alito dissented.

Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (decided on June 23, 2021):

The Court held that the California regulation granting labor organizations access to an agricultural employer’s property to solicit support for unionization constitutes a per se physical taking of property under the Fifth Amendment, meaning that the Court did not have to engage in a balancing of facts and circumstances to determine if there was a physical taking. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion for the Court, in which all the other conservative justices joined, and the three liberal justices dissented.

2019-2020 Court Term

Ramos v. Louisiana:

This case involved the challenge to non-unanimous juries in felony cases. The Court held 6-3 in an opinion written by Justice Gorsuch that the Sixth Amendment requirement of unanimous juries applies to the states. Thus, Mr. Ramos will have a new trial and go back to prison only if he is convicted by a unanimous jury. Justices Alito, Roberts and Kagan dissented. The various opinions are significant because they discuss the role of precedent and the importance of the principle of stare decisis to our legal system.            

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue:

This case involved state funding of scholarships at private religious elementary schools. The Court held 5-4 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by the conservative justices that Montana’s “no aid” clause prohibiting the use of public funds to support private religious schools discriminates on the bases of religious status and thus violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Thus Montana is ordered to reinstate the program its supreme court had invalidated. This decision is widely expected to change the way public funds are used to support private education in the many states whose “no aid” constitutional clauses are thus held to be invalid.              

Intel Corporation Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma:

This case involved the Intel employee who claimed he had not read disclosure documents and thus had no “actual knowledge” of a fiduciary breach. The Court unanimously held in an opinion by Justice Alito that the Court must look to the plain meaning of the statutory term “actual knowledge.” To have actual knowledge one must be aware of the facts. Thus, Mr. Sulyma’s claim may proceed because the statute of limitations had not run when he filed his lawsuit.

2018-2019 Court Term

Gamble v. U.S., in which he Court upheld the “separate sovereign” exception to the double jeopardy rule.              

Frank v. Gaos, involving the use of the cy pres doctrine in class action settlements, which the Court returned to the lower courts for further proceedings to determine whether class members had suffered a concrete injury, as required by the Court’s earlier decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

Nieves v. Bartlett, in which the Court held that an individual may not sue arresting officers for damages for retaliatory arrest if the officers had “probable cause” to make the arrest.

Madison v. Alabama, in which the Court held that the 8th Amendment did not permit the execution of Mr. Madison, whose severe and deteriorating medical condition left him mentally disabled such that he is unable to remember his offense or have a rational understanding of the circumstances of his scheduled execution.

Timbs v. Indiana, in which the Court held that the 8th Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is applicable to the States via the 14th Amendment in the context of asset forfeiture.

2017-2018 Court Term

Carpenter v. United States, where the Court held that the acquisition of cell-site records from the defendant’s wireless carrier was a Fourth Amendment search, requiring a warrant supported by probable cause.

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, holding that arbitration agreements between employees and their employers must be enforced in accordance with their terms as contemplated by the Federal Arbitration Act, notwithstanding the National Labor Relations Act’s protection of concerted activities.

Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, in which the Court held that Ohio’s policy of updating its voter records by removing from the voter rolls individuals who have failed to vote for two years and failed to respond to a postcard inquiry about their change of address did not violate the National Voter Registration Act, which prohibits using failure to vote as a reason for removing a name from the voter rolls.

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case involving whether a baker could refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.  The Court held that the ruling of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed bias against religion and violated the baker’s First Amendment right of free exercise of religion.

2016-2017 Court Term

Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, in which the Court held that Missouri violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when it refused to make playground safety benefits available to churches on the same basis as other nonsectarian private organizations.

Buck v. Davis, in which the Court reversed the death sentence of the defendant because at trial the defendant’s attorney introduced evidence that suggested the defendant would be more likely to commit violent acts in the future because he is black.

Moore v. Texas, in which the Court held that courts must use legitimate medical diagnostic criteria when diagnosing mental disabilities in those on death row.

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia Board of Elections, in which the Court evaluated whether Virginia’s legislature violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by considering racial demographics when drawing the boundaries of twelve of the state’s legislative districts.  The Court held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard when it determined that race did not predominate in eleven of the twelve districts and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.