Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i)’s federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain is facially unconstitutional. The Petitioner, the United States, argues that these provisions do not criminalize speech protected under the First Amendment because “encourage” and “induce” refer only to the facilitation or solicitation of illegal immigration and not to protected speech. The United States thus argues that these provisions have a legitimate sweep because they primarily regulate conduct. The Respondent, Evelyn Sineneng-Smith, counters that “encourage” and “induce” have expansive meanings that extend beyond facilitative conduct. Sineneng-Smith claims that these provisions primarily function to criminalize a wide array of speech that is protected under the First Amendment. The outcome of this case will affect the ways in which citizens may advocate for immigration reform and the nature of professional immigration advice.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Section 1915 contains a “three-strikes rule” holding a prisoner liable for litigation costs incurred when filing a civil lawsuit if the prisoner has had three or more prior civil lawsuits dismissed. Petitioner Arthur J. Lomax argues that a court’s dismissal of a complaint without prejudice does not count towards the three-strikes rule that would ban him from filing future legal complaints without filing fees. Lomax supports this argument by noting that dismissal without prejudice does not fall within the meaning of “dismissal” in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Respondent Christina Ortiz-Marquez asserts that this type of dismissal does count towards the three-strike rule because the statute does not differentiate between dismissal with or without prejudice. The Court’s decision will affect a prisoner’s ability to bring civil actions while incarcerated.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether it can retroactively apply portions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) to impose punitive damages on a foreign nation. Monicah Opati seeks to recover punitive damages from the Republic of Sudan for its role in al Qaeda’s 1998 embassy bombings. Opati contends that under Republic of Austria v. Altmann, the Act’s immunity exception for foreign states applies retroactively, thereby reaching the al Qaeda bombings even though they occurred prior to the current statute’s enactment. The Republic of Sudan counters that Altmann does not apply here; and, the FSIA’s plaint text does not allow plaintiffs such as Opati to recover punitive damages retroactively under the Act’s immunity exception for foreign states. This case’s outcome implicates the amount of deference given to political branches and could change the balance between plaintiffs suing under FSIA and defendant foreign states.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the categorical approach under the Armed Career Criminal Act (“ACCA”) should apply to “serious drug offense” determinations. Petitioner Eddie Lee Shular argues that under the ACCA, a “serious drug offense” must be considered under the same offense-matching categorical approach that is applied to a “violent felony” under the Act. Shular further argues that the “serious drug offense” provision of the statute requires a mens rea element in the prior state offense in order to qualify under the ACCA. Respondent United States counters that the categorical approach is not applicable to the “serious drug offense” provision of the ACCA, and that a mens rea element is not a requirement under the Act. The outcome of this case will affect uniformity in the criminal justice system, constitutional avoidance, and the ability of courts to limit detrimental effects and disparate impacts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether the New York Convention permits a non-signatory to an international arbitration agreement to compel a signatory to arbitrate. GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. argues that non-signatories may compel a signatory to arbitrate by invoking equitable estoppel because it is available for domestic arbitration under Chapter 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. GE further argues that this is permissible because the Convention contemplates that countries will apply their pro-arbitration domestic laws. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC, et al. disagrees, arguing that the Convention’s text and structure impose a baseline writing requirement to show consent to arbitration. The Court’s decision will affect business parties’ calculation of their arbitration liabilities and how carefully they draft the scope of their arbitration agreements.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the extent to which there is “room for play in the joints” between the Religion Clauses in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, namely the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. While the Free Exercise Clause forbids the government from burdening religious practice, the Establishment Clause forbids the government from advancing it. But in some instances, the government may operate in the sphere of religion—what is known as the “room for play between the joints”—without running afoul of either provision. Article X, Section 6(1) of the Montana Constitution excludes religious entities from participating in some generally applicable funding programs. In drafting the provision, legislators sought to erect a greater barrier between church and state. However, the provision may also have unduly burdened religious practice. Kendra Espinoza, Jeri Ellen Anderson, and Jaime Schaefer—mothers who wish to use state-administered scholarship funds to send their children to religious schools—argue that Article X, Section 6(1) violates the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by forbidding scholarship recipients from using the funds to cover tuition expenses at religiously-affiliated schools. The Montana Department of Revenue counters that Article X, Section 6(1) does not violate the Free Exercise Clause or the Equal Protection Clause and does not create hostility toward religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Instead, the Department contends that Article X, Section 6(1) creates a greater barrier between church and state. The outcome of this case will impact other religious entities’ ability to participate in government benefit programs, and it will impact the national debate over school choice programs.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether ERISA plan participants have standing to sue for breaches of fiduciary duty where the underlying employee benefit plan is overfunded. Thole and Smith argue that they have standing under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2)–(3) and the common law of trusts because neither conditions standing on a showing of individual financial loss. U.S. Bank counters that Thole and Smith have not suffered an injury sufficient to support standing because their retirement benefits were never actually at risk and they have no interest in a plan’s overfunded surplus. The outcome of this case will determine the circumstances in which certain plan participants may enforce ERISA violations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a plaintiff must show that an entity willfully infringed on a trademark in order to be awarded the infringer’s profits for violating the Lanham Act. Romag Fasteners, Inc. argues that the plain text of Section 1117(a) and the structure of the Lanham Act omits a willfulness requirement, and the phrase “subject to the principles of equity” in Section 1117(a) does not justify such a requirement. Fossil, Inc. counters that the textual analysis of Section 1117(a) should incorporate traditional principles of equity that require willfulness for profits awards because the text expressly allows for consideration of equitable principles. The outcome of this case has important implications for the rights of trademark holders and awards of damages.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to consider whether courts can prevent a defendant from raising a defense if the defendant failed to assert that defense against the same plaintiff in a prior, similar lawsuit. The Second Circuit recognized “defense preclusion” as a valid civil procedure concept to bar Lucky Brands Dungarees from raising a new defense in a trademark infringement lawsuit against Marcel Fashions Group where Lucky Brands Dungarees could have raised this defense in a previous lawsuit over the same alleged infringement. Lucky Brands Dungarees contends that applying defense preclusion against a defendant conflicts with fundamental principles of res judicata and is a novel invention by the Second Circuit that is harmful to defendants whose interests change over time. Marcel Fashions Group counters that defense preclusion is a logical feature of res judicata and argues that this doctrine clearly applies to defendants who, after losing a lawsuit, do not change their conduct. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact when and how defendants strategically raise defenses in civil litigation.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

In 2010, two public officials, Bridget Anne Kelly and William E. Baroni, Jr., reallocated two toll lanes on the George Washington Bridge’s upper level to punish Fort Lee’s mayor for refusing to endorse then-New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s re-election campaign. Despite disguising this corrupt act as a traffic study, Kelly and Baroni were indicted for and convicted of wire fraud, defrauding a federally funded entity, and conspiracy to defraud. Petitioner Kelly and Respondent Baroni now argue that the Port Authority was never deprived of a legally-protected property right and that fraud cannot have occurred because the alleged victim received exactly what was bargained for, even though the public officials lied about their true intentions. Respondent United States contends that the Port Authority was deprived of a property right because Kelly and Baroni’s traffic-study lie encumbered the Port Authority’s exclusive free use of the George Washington Bridge and because neither Kelly nor Baroni had the authority to make such drastic changes. The outcome of this case has implications on future politics and whether political corruption should be prosecuted as a federal crime.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources