Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case TrackerThe Court, in plain English

By term

October Term 2013 (2013–2014)

25 casesRecap
  • Before Arguments0
  • Awaiting Decision0
  • Decided25
  • Dismissed0
25 of 25 tracked cases in October Term 2013 (2013–2014) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Decided Cases

25
DecidedReligious objections to birth controlSylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.Hobby Lobby challenged a federal rule requiring its health plan to cover contraception, citing its owners’ religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled that the rule violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) as applied to closely held corporations and agreed with the appeals court in Hobby Lobby’s case.Decided 13-354DecidedAbortion clinic buffer zonesEleanor McCullen v. Martha Coakley, Attorney General of MassachusettsThe Supreme Court ruled that Massachusetts’s 35-foot buffer-zone law around abortion-clinic entrances violated the First Amendment, overturned the First Circuit’s decision, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 12-1168DecidedCopyright for TV streamingAmerican Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., fka Bamboom Labs, Inc.The Supreme Court ruled that Aereo publicly performed the networks’ copyrighted programs when it sent them over the Internet to subscribers. It overturned the Second Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 13-461DecidedStock fraud class actionsHalliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., fka Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, Inc.Former Halliburton shareholders sought class-action status in a securities-fraud suit using a rule that presumes investors relied on public misstatements reflected in an efficient market’s stock price. The Court kept that rule but allowed Halliburton to offer evidence before class certification that the alleged misstatements did not affect the stock price; it wiped out the Fifth Circuit ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back (remanded it).Decided 13-317DecidedComputer software patentsAlice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank InternationalAlice Corporation held patents for a computer-based system that used a third party to settle financial transactions and reduce the risk that one side would not pay. The Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court that Alice’s patent claims covered an abstract idea and could not be patented under federal law.Decided 13-298DecidedBruce James Abramski, Jr. v. United StatesBruce Abramski bought a handgun for his uncle but told the licensed dealer he was the actual buyer. The Supreme Court upheld Abramski’s conviction, ruling that the actual buyer’s identity mattered to the sale and had to be recorded because dealers must keep Form 4473, which asks who the actual buyer is.Decided 12-1493DecidedLaws against false political speechSusan B. Anthony List v. Steven DriehausSusan B. Anthony List planned a billboard saying Representative Steven Driehaus’s vote for the Affordable Care Act supported taxpayer-funded abortion, and Ohio’s elections commission began proceedings over its political speech. The Supreme Court ruled that the threat of enforcement SBA List alleged was sufficiently near-term to challenge the law before prosecution, overturned the appeals court’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 13-193DecidedChildren aging out of visasLori Scialabba, Acting Director, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services v. Rosalina Cuellar de OsorioSeveral immigrant families asked to keep their children’s original place in the visa line after the children turned 21 while waiting for visas. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded), ruling that the Board of Immigration Appeals reasonably read the law and that its reading deserved deference.Decided 12-930DecidedBankruptcy judges' authorityExecutive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Peter H. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.The Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that a bankruptcy judge could hear Peter Arkison’s fraudulent-transfer claim and recommend findings to a district court for review from scratch, and left the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in place. It assumed without deciding that the bankruptcy judge could not issue a final ruling on the claim and did not decide whether parties may consent to a bankruptcy judge’s final judgment or whether silence counts as consent.Decided 12-1200DecidedClear patent claimsNautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.Biosig sued Nautilus over a heart-rate monitor patent; Nautilus said its claims were unclear. The Supreme Court rejected the appeals court’s “insolubly ambiguous” test, wiped out its ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back to decide whether experts could understand the claims’ scope with reasonable certainty; it left open whether assuming patents are valid affects that test.Decided 13-369DecidedFederal power over local poisoningCarol Anne Bond v. United StatesCarol Anne Bond was prosecuted under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act after using chemicals in an attempt to harm her husband’s pregnant friend, causing a minor burn. The Supreme Court ruled that the law did not cover Bond’s simple assault, overturned the appeals court’s decision, and sent the case back to it (remanded it).Decided 12-158DecidedLimelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.Akamai claimed Limelight encouraged patent infringement, and the Federal Circuit allowed liability despite no direct infringement under § 271(a). The Supreme Court ruled that liability for encouraging infringement requires someone to directly infringe under § 271(a) or another statute, overturned the Federal Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 12-786DecidedTribal immunity from state lawsuitsMichigan v. Bay Mills Indian CommunityMichigan sued the Bay Mills Indian Community, alleging that gambling at a casino outside Indian lands violated federal gaming law. The Supreme Court ruled that the tribe’s immunity from suit barred Michigan’s case, agreed with the Sixth Circuit, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 12-515DecidedDeath penalty disability rulesFreddie Lee Hall v. FloridaFreddie Lee Hall challenged Florida’s strict IQ cutoff for deciding whether he could present evidence of intellectual disability and avoid execution. The Supreme Court ruled the cutoff unconstitutional as Florida’s supreme court had interpreted it, overturned that court’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court.Decided 12-10882DecidedDiscrimination against protestersTim Wood and Rob Savage v. Michael MossTim Wood and Rob Savage, who opposed President Bush, alleged that Secret Service agents moved them farther from him than Bush supporters because of their views. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit and ruled that the agents had qualified immunity (protection from damages because the law did not clearly establish their conduct was unlawful); it did not decide whether the protesters adequately alleged viewpoint discrimination.Decided 13-115DecidedWhen double jeopardy beginsEsteban Martinez v. IllinoisAfter the jury was sworn, Illinois presented no evidence, and the trial judge entered a not-guilty verdict for Esteban Martinez. The Supreme Court overturned the Illinois Supreme Court and sent the case back (remanded), ruling that the jury’s oath triggered protection against a second trial and Martinez could not be tried again.Decided 13-5967DecidedPolice shootings during car chasesOfficer Vance Plumhoff v. Whitne Rickard, a Minor Child, Individually, and as Surviving Daughter of Donald Rickard, By and Through Her Mother Samantha Rickard, as Parent and Next FriendWhitne Rickard sued officers over deadly force against her father. The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), ruling the officers were entitled to summary judgment under qualified immunity (protection from suit): no clearly established law barred their conduct, even if it violated the Fourth Amendment.Decided 12-1117DecidedBill Schuette, Attorney General of Michigan v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN)<p> Justice KENNEDY announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and Justice ALITO join. </p>Decided 12-682DecidedTraffic stops based on tipsLorenzo Prado Navarette and Jose Prado Navarette v. CaliforniaThe Navarette brothers challenged a traffic stop after police received an anonymous 911 report that a truck had run another vehicle off the road. The Court ruled the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because the circumstances gave the officer enough reason to suspect the truck’s driver was intoxicated, and agreed with the lower court (affirmed).Decided 12-9490DecidedCampaign donation limitsShaun McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission<p> Chief Justice ROBERTS announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice SCALIA, Justice KENNEDY, and Justice ALITO join. </p>Decided 12-536DecidedWho decides arbitration requirementsBG Group plc v. Republic of ArgentinaBG Group challenged Argentina’s refusal to honor an arbitration award after the arbitrators excused the company’s failure to first pursue its claim in Argentine courts. The Supreme Court overturned the appeals court, concluding that the arbitrators could interpret and excuse that treaty requirement, and that their decision was lawful under deferential court review.Decided 12-138DecidedManuel Jose Lozano v. Diana Lucia Montoya AlvarezThe dispute was whether the Hague Convention’s one-year period for seeking a child’s return could be paused when one parent concealed the child’s whereabouts. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the Second Circuit that the period cannot be extended through equitable tolling (a rule that pauses a legal deadline).Decided 12-820DecidedImmunity for security reportsAir Wisconsin Airlines Corporation v. William L. HoeperAir Wisconsin faced a defamation claim over a report it made to the Transportation Security Administration about William Hoeper. The Supreme Court ruled that the report was protected from liability under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act because its inaccuracies would not have changed a reasonable security officer’s response; it overturned the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 12-315DecidedDisability benefit lawsuit deadlinesJulie Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co.Julie Heimeshoff challenged Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co.’s denial of her long-term disability benefits, arguing that the plan’s three-year deadline should not run while her internal appeal was pending. The Supreme Court ruled that the deadline was enforceable and agreed with the Second Circuit that her lawsuit was too late.Decided 12-729DecidedUnger v. YoungDecided 13-95