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

By term

October Term 2018 (2018–2019)

78 casesRecap
  • Before Arguments0
  • Awaiting Decision0
  • Decided78
  • Dismissed0
78 of 78 tracked cases in October Term 2018 (2018–2019) have a decision on the record.

Term tracker

Every published case, by stage

Decided Cases

78
DecidedPartisan gerrymanderingLinda H. Lamone, et al., Appellants v. O. John Benisek, et al.The Court held, 5–4, that federal courts cannot decide claims that electoral district maps are unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders because those claims raise political questions without a workable legal standard. The Court vacated the lower court’s rulings for the Maryland voters; Maryland election officials prevailed.Decided 18-726DecidedCitizenship question on censusDepartment of Commerce v. New YorkCommerce Secretary Wilbur Ross sought to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census, while New York and other states, cities, and counties argued that it could lower response rates and cause an undercount. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution permits asking about citizenship and that Ross’s decision could be reviewed under the Administrative Procedure Act, but it left some lower-court rulings in place, overturned others, and sent the case back for another look (remanded) because his stated reason did not match the evidence.Decided 18-966DecidedBlood draws without warrantsMitchell v. WisconsinMitchell challenged a warrantless blood test under Wisconsin’s implied-consent law after becoming unconscious during a suspected drunk-driving arrest. The Supreme Court wiped out the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling and sent the case back (vacated and remanded); four justices said the emergency exception generally allows testing when an unconscious driver cannot take a breath test.Decided 18-6210DecidedPartisan election mapsRucho v. Common CauseNorth Carolina lawmakers appealed after a federal court struck down the state’s 2016 congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts cannot decide partisan-gerrymandering claims, wiped out the lower court’s ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded it).Decided 18-422DecidedAgencies interpreting their rulesKisor v. WilkieMarine veteran James Kisor sought retroactive disability benefits for service-related PTSD after the Department of Veterans Affairs refused to pay them under its reading of a benefits regulation. The Supreme Court left Auer and Seminole Rock in place, but wiped out the Federal Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back (vacated and remanded) to reconsider the regulation’s meaning.Decided 18-15DecidedResidency rules for liquor licensesTennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. ThomasThis case was about a Tennessee law that let people or businesses get retail liquor licenses only if they had lived in the state for a set number of years. The Supreme Court considered whether those residency rules were unconstitutional discrimination against out-of-state businesses or were allowed under the Twenty-first Amendment.Decided 18-96DecidedUnited States v. HaymondThe Supreme Court wiped out the Tenth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back (vacated and remanded). Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, concluded that applying 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k) to Haymond violated his right to a jury trial; Justice Breyer agreed with the result but wrote separately.Decided 17-1672DecidedPublic release of business dataFood Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader MediaThis case asked whether the government had to release store-by-store SNAP redemption data in response to a FOIA request, or whether that business information was protected from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 4. The Supreme Court held that business information is "confidential" under Exemption 4 when it is normally kept private and was given to the government with an assurance of privacy.Decided 18-481DecidedVague gun crime definitionsUnited States v. DavisThe Supreme Court ruled that the federal law’s definition of a “crime of violence” for firearm charges is unconstitutionally vague, meaning it is too unclear to enforce under the Constitution. The Court agreed with part of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, wiped out another part (vacated), and sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded).Decided 18-431DecidedOffensive words in trademarksIancu v. BrunettiThis case asked whether the federal government could refuse to register trademarks it considered “immoral” or “scandalous,” after the Patent and Trademark Office denied Erik Brunetti’s application to register the mark FUCT. The Supreme Court held that this part of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment because it discriminates based on viewpoint.Decided 18-302DecidedExtra damages for injured sailorsDutra Group v. BattertonChristopher Batterton, a deckhand for The Dutra Group, sought punitive damages—extra money meant to punish—after a hatch cover injured his hand, claiming the vessel was unseaworthy (not reasonably fit for service). The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling (reversed) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), deciding that a seaman cannot recover punitive damages on an unseaworthiness claim.Decided 18-266DecidedState taxes on trust incomeNorth Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family TrustThis case was about whether North Carolina could tax a trust’s undistributed income just because the trust’s beneficiary lived in North Carolina, even though the trust itself had no trustee, property, or investments in the state and made no distributions there during the tax years at issue. The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause does not allow a state to tax trust income based only on the in-state residence of beneficiaries in those circumstances.Decided 18-457DecidedKnowing who can't own gunsRehaif v. United StatesThis case asked whether, to convict someone under the federal law banning certain people from possessing firearms, the government must prove not only that the person knowingly possessed a gun but also that he knew he belonged to a prohibited category, such as being unlawfully in the United States. The Supreme Court held that the government must prove both.Decided 17-9560DecidedProperty claims in federal courtKnick v. Township of ScottAfter the Township of Scott required public access to cemeteries on private land, property owner Rose Mary Knick sued under a federal civil-rights law, claiming the ordinance took her property without compensation. The Supreme Court overturned the rule requiring her to seek payment in state court first, wiped out the Third Circuit’s judgment (vacated), and sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded), without finally deciding the ordinance’s effect.Decided 17-647DecidedRace discrimination in jury selectionFlowers v. MississippiThis case asked whether Curtis Flowers’s murder conviction from his sixth trial could stand when the same prosecutor had repeatedly struck Black jurors across Flowers’s earlier trials and again removed most Black prospective jurors at the sixth trial. The Supreme Court held that the trial court clearly erred in finding no racial discrimination in the prosecutor’s strike of a Black prospective juror.Decided 17-9572DecidedFake evidence lawsuit deadlinesMcDonough v. SmithRobert McDonough sued under a federal civil-rights law, claiming an official fabricated evidence used against him in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that the deadline for his suit began when he was acquitted at his second trial, overturned the Second Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 18-485DecidedCross-shaped war memorialsAmerican Legion v. American Humanist Assn.The case challenged the public display of the cross-shaped Bladensburg Peace Cross, a World War I memorial, under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court overturned the Fourth Circuit’s ruling that the memorial was unconstitutional and sent the case back to that court (remanded).Decided 17-1717DecidedFCC rules for phone callsPDR Network, LLC v. Carlton Harris Chiropractic, Inc.Carlton & Harris sued PDR Network over whether a free-e-book fax was an unsolicited ad under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Supreme Court wiped out the appeals court’s judgment (vacated it) and sent the case back (remanded) to consider preliminary questions affecting whether the Federal Communications Commission’s order binds courts, without deciding that issue.Decided 17-1705DecidedSex offender registration rulesGundy v. United StatesHerman Gundy argued that Congress unlawfully gave the attorney general authority to set SORNA registration rules for people convicted before the law took effect. The Supreme Court left the lower court’s ruling in place: four justices concluded the delegation was constitutional, and Justice Alito agreed with the result under existing precedent for different reasons.Decided 17-6086DecidedState power over uranium miningVirginia Uranium, Inc. v. WarrenThis case asked whether Virginia could ban uranium mining on private land within the state, or whether federal nuclear law left that issue exclusively to the federal government. The Supreme Court held that the Atomic Energy Act did not preempt Virginia’s mining ban.Decided 16-1275DecidedPrivate groups and free speechManhattan Community Access Corp. v. HalleckThe Supreme Court decided that Manhattan Community Access Corp. (MNN), a private organization that runs public-access television channels, is not a government actor subject to the First Amendment’s limits on government action. It overturned part of the Second Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 17-1702DecidedWho can appeal voting mapsVirginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-HillVirginia voters challenged 11 Virginia House of Delegates districts as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, and a federal district court struck those districts down. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, holding that the Virginia House of Delegates could not continue the case on its own after the State chose not to appeal.Decided 18-281DecidedTwo prosecutions for same crimeGamble v. United StatesThe case asked whether the federal government could prosecute Terance Gamble for being a felon in possession of a firearm after Alabama had already prosecuted him for the same conduct. The Supreme Court held that this second prosecution did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause because state and federal governments are separate sovereigns.Decided 17-646DecidedGovernment challenges to patentsReturn Mail, Inc. v. Postal ServiceReturn Mail sued the U.S. Postal Service for patent infringement, prompting the USPS to petition for a patent review. The Supreme Court decided that the federal government is not considered a "person" capable of instituting patent review proceedings under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.Decided 17-1594DecidedWhen burglary intent formsQuarles v. United StatesThe Supreme Court upheld the Sixth Circuit’s ruling for the United States, deciding that the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) treats Michigan’s third-degree home-invasion law as generic burglary even when criminal intent forms after entry but while unlawfully remaining inside. The decision left Jamar Quarles’s Michigan conviction eligible to support the ACCA’s longer sentence for certain repeat firearm offenders.Decided 17-778DecidedState laws on offshore drillingParker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. NewtonThis case asked whether California wage-and-hour rules applied to workers on offshore drilling platforms on the Outer Continental Shelf, where federal law generally controls. The Court held that state law can be adopted there only to fill a gap in federal law, not whenever the state rule relates to the dispute.Decided 18-389DecidedSupervised release during detentionMont v. United StatesThis case asked whether a person’s federal supervised-release term stops running while the person is held in pretrial detention on new charges, if that detention is later credited toward the sentence for the new conviction. The Court held that such credited pretrial detention does pause the supervised-release term under federal law.Decided 17-8995DecidedPublic comment on Medicare rulesAlex M. Azar, II, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitioner v. Allina Health Services, et al.The Court ruled for Allina Health Services and held that the Department of Health and Human Services had to use notice-and-comment procedures before adopting its Medicare reimbursement policy. Because HHS had no lawful excuse for skipping those procedures, the Court affirmed the lower court’s decision vacating the policy.Decided 17-1484DecidedDebt collection after bankruptcyTaggart v. LorenzenThis case asked when a creditor can be punished for violating a bankruptcy discharge order by trying to collect a debt that was wiped out in bankruptcy. Bradley Taggart argued that the creditors should be held in contempt for seeking attorney’s fees after his discharge, while the lower court had ruled that a creditor’s good-faith belief that the discharge did not apply prevented contempt.Decided 18-489DecidedReporting discrimination before suingFort Bend County v. DavisLois Davis’s Title VII religion-discrimination claim did not meet the required charge-filing step, and the dispute was whether that barred a federal court from hearing her claim. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with the appeals court (affirmed) that the filing step is a procedural rule the employer can give up, not a limit on a federal court’s authority to hear the claim.Decided 18-525DecidedClass actions in federal courtHome Depot U.S.A., Inc., Petitioner v. George W. JacksonThis case asked whether Home Depot, which was added to a state-court case only as a defendant to the buyer’s class-action counterclaim, could move that class-action part of the case into federal court. The Supreme Court held that neither the general removal statute nor the Class Action Fairness Act lets a third-party counterclaim defendant remove the case.Decided 17-1471DecidedCourt review of disability appealsSmith v. BerryhillThe Supreme Court ruled that the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council made a decision federal courts could review when it rejected Ricky Lee Smith’s disability-benefit appeal as late after a hearing before an administrative law judge. The Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), without deciding whether Smith should receive benefits.Decided 17-1606DecidedArrests for criticizing policeNieves v. BartlettProbable cause usually defeats a claim that police arrested someone for protected speech, except when similar people who were not speaking were not arrested. The Court found probable cause for Russell Bartlett’s arrest, rejected his claim, overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 17-1174Case remandedOfficer battery and gun penaltiesReinaldo Santos, Petitioner v. United StatesThe Supreme Court vacated the Eleventh Circuit’s decision and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of the federal government’s position. The case concerns whether Santos’s Florida conviction for battery on a law enforcement officer counts as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause.Remanded 18-7096DecidedTrademark licenses in bankruptcyMission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLCAfter Tempnology filed for bankruptcy, it rejected a licensing agreement that let Mission distribute certain products and use Tempnology’s trademarks. The Supreme Court held that rejecting the contract counted as a breach, not a cancellation, so it did not automatically strip Mission of rights that would have survived an ordinary breach outside bankruptcy.Decided 17-1657DecidedTribal treaty hunting rightsHerrera v. WyomingThe Supreme Court ruled that Wyoming’s statehood did not end Crow member Clayvin Herrera’s treaty right to hunt on unoccupied federal land, and creating Bighorn National Forest did not make the entire forest occupied. It vacated (wiped out) the judgment and remanded (sent the case back to the lower court), leaving unresolved whether Wyoming could regulate treaty hunting for conservation.Decided 17-532DecidedDrug warnings and lawsuitsMerck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. AlbrechtFosamax users sued Merck over its warning label; Merck said FDA action barred their claims. The Court defined “clear evidence” as Merck fully informing the FDA why state law required the warning and the FDA telling Merck it would not approve it; it wiped out the appeals ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back (remanded), leaving the preemption issue unresolved.Decided 17-290DecidedWhistleblower lawsuit deadlinesCochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. HuntThis case asked how the False Claims Act’s statute of limitations applies when a private whistleblower brings a qui tam suit and the United States chooses not to intervene. The Court held that the whistleblower may rely on the Act’s 3-year knowledge-based limitations period in that situation, but the whistleblower is not the "official of the United States" whose knowledge starts that period.Decided 18-315DecidedStates sued in other statesFranchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. HyattThis case asked whether Gilbert Hyatt could keep suing California’s Franchise Tax Board in Nevada state court for alleged misconduct during a tax audit. The Supreme Court used the case to decide whether states have sovereign immunity from private suits in other states’ courts and ultimately overruled Nevada v. Hall.Decided 17-1299DecidedApp store price lawsuitsApple, Inc. v. PepperThis case asked whether iPhone owners who bought apps through Apple’s App Store could sue Apple for allegedly monopolizing the market for iPhone apps and charging higher prices. The Court held that because consumers bought the apps directly from Apple, they were direct purchasers and could bring an antitrust damages claim.Decided 17-204Case remandedThreats as violent crimesJames Myers, Petitioner v. United StatesJames Myers challenged the use of his Arkansas conviction for first-degree terroristic threatening as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Supreme Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s judgment and sent the case back for reconsideration in light of the Solicitor General’s position.Remanded 18-6859DecidedTVA immunity from lawsuitsGary Thacker, et ux., Petitioners v. Tennessee Valley AuthorityThe Court unanimously ruled for the Thackers, holding that the TVA’s broad authority to “sue and be sued” is not limited by the Federal Tort Claims Act’s discretionary-function exception. It sent the case back for the lower courts to decide whether the alleged negligence was commercial or governmental and, if governmental, whether allowing the suit would gravely interfere with the TVA’s governmental work.Decided 17-1201DecidedClass arbitrationLamps Plus, Inc. v. VarelaAfter Lamps Plus employee Frank Varela sued over the company’s release of employee information during a phishing scam, a federal appeals court allowed class arbitration, a single proceeding for many people’s claims, under an ambiguous agreement. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling (reversed it) and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded it), deciding that ambiguity alone cannot show the parties agreed to class arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.Decided 17-988DecidedMisleading takeover statementsEmulex Corp. v. VarjabedianEmulex and Varjabedian disputed whether federal securities law allows an investor to sue over a careless statement or omission connected to a tender offer, as the Ninth Circuit ruled. The Supreme Court ended its review without deciding that question; it dismissed the writ (the order for Supreme Court review) as improvidently granted.Decided 18-459DecidedExecution by nitrogen gasJefferson S. Dunn, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Applicants v. Christopher Lee PriceThe Supreme Court granted Alabama’s request to lift stays of Christopher Lee Price’s execution that had been entered by the federal district court and the Eleventh Circuit. The Court vacated those stays, allowing Alabama to proceed with the execution.Decided 18A1053DecidedProof of available jobsBiestek v. BerryhillThis case was about a Social Security disability benefits hearing in which an administrative law judge relied on a vocational expert’s testimony about jobs the claimant could still do, even though the expert refused to turn over the survey data behind her job-number estimates. The Supreme Court decided that such testimony is not automatically disqualified and can still count as substantial evidence, depending on the circumstances of the case.Decided 17-1184DecidedPain from lethal injectionsBucklew v. PrecytheRussell Bucklew, a death-row inmate with a unique medical condition, challenged Missouri's lethal injection protocol under the Eighth Amendment, arguing it would cause him severe pain. The Supreme Court ruled that he failed to meet his burden of proving a feasible alternative method of execution that would significantly reduce his risk of pain.Decided 17-8151DecidedFalse statements to investorsLorenzo v. SECThe Supreme Court ruled that sending investors false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can violate federal securities anti-fraud rules, even if the sender did not have final authority over the statements. It upheld the appeals court’s ruling in the SEC’s case against Frank Lorenzo.Decided 17-1077DecidedPark rules outside federal landSturgeon v. FrostThe Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (reversed and remanded), deciding that Alaska’s Nation River is not “public land” under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Because the river and other nonfederal lands inside Alaska’s national parks are outside those park units for this law, the National Park Service cannot apply its usual national-park rules there.Decided 17-949DecidedServing foreign governmentsRepublic of Sudan v. HarrisonThe Supreme Court overturned the Second Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded), deciding that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires legal papers to be mailed directly to Sudan’s foreign minister’s office in Sudan. The dispute concerned whether plaintiffs could instead mail the papers through Sudan’s embassy in Washington, D.C., in a case involving a $314 million default judgment against Sudan.Decided 16-1094DecidedWho can sue over privacyFrank v. GaosThis case arose from a privacy class action against Google over allegations that it shared users’ search terms with third-party websites. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the settlement was proper; instead, it vacated the Ninth Circuit’s approval of a settlement that paid only cy pres recipients and sent the case back to consider whether the named plaintiffs had Article III standing under Spokeo.Decided 17-961DecidedForeclosure debt collectionObduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLPThis case asked whether a law firm that does only nonjudicial foreclosures counts as a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Supreme Court held that businesses engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are generally not covered as debt collectors, except for the Act’s limited rule in 15 U.S.C. § 1692f(6).Decided 17-1307DecidedDelays in immigration detentionNielsen v. PreapThe case was about whether certain noncitizens with qualifying criminal convictions must be held in mandatory immigration detention even when federal immigration officials do not arrest them immediately after they are released from criminal custody. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that a delay in taking them into immigration custody does not take them out of the mandatory-detention rule.Decided 16-1363DecidedAsbestos warnings for added partsAir & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVriesThis case was about when, under maritime law, equipment manufacturers must warn users about the dangers of asbestos in insulation or replacement parts that were later added by the Navy or other third parties. The Court held that a manufacturer has that duty to warn when its product requires the later-added part to work as intended, the finished product is likely dangerous, and the manufacturer has no reason to think users would already know about the danger.Decided 17-1104DecidedTribal treaty rights and fuel taxesWashington State Dept. of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc.This case asked whether Washington could impose its fuel-import tax on Cougar Den, a Yakama-owned company that transports fuel by highway from Oregon to the Yakama Reservation. The Supreme Court held that, as applied here, the tax was barred by an 1855 treaty protecting the Yakama Nation’s right to travel on public highways.Decided 16-1498DecidedWhen copyright lawsuits can startFourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.comThis case determines whether a copyright owner can file an infringement lawsuit immediately after submitting a registration application, or if they must wait until the Copyright Office officially processes the claim. The Supreme Court ruled that a copyright claim is only considered registered once the Copyright Office acts on the application.Decided 17-571DecidedCopyright lawsuit costsRimini Street, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Oracle USA, Inc., et al.In Rimini Street’s copyright case against Oracle, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that “full costs” means only costs listed in federal law, not extra litigation expenses. It overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on those extra costs in part and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 17-1625DecidedTaxes on railroad back payBNSF R. Co. v. LoosThe Supreme Court ruled that BNSF’s payment to Michael Loos for work time he missed because of an on-the-job injury counted as taxable compensation under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. It overturned the Eighth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 17-1042DecidedAppeal rights after plea dealsGarza v. IdahoThis case asked whether a criminal defense lawyer gives ineffective assistance by refusing to file a notice of appeal after the defendant asks for one, even though the defendant signed a plea agreement waiving appeal rights. The Supreme Court held that the usual presumption of prejudice applies in that situation because some issues may still be appealable despite the waiver.Decided 17-1026DecidedImmunity for global organizationsJam v. International Finance Corp.Budha Ismael Jam and other Indian residents sued the International Finance Corporation (IFC) over a project it financed in India. The Supreme Court overturned the D.C. Circuit’s ruling (reversed) and sent the case back to that court (remanded), deciding that international organizations have the same immunity (protection from lawsuits) that foreign governments have today under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, not the broader protection foreign governments had in 1945.Decided 17-1011DecidedMental ability to face executionMadison v. AlabamaThe Supreme Court wiped out Alabama’s ruling and sent Vernon Madison’s case back to the state court (vacated and remanded) to reconsider whether he is legally fit to be executed. The Court said forgetting the crime alone does not bar execution, but the Eighth Amendment may bar it if dementia or another disorder leaves him unable to understand why the State is imposing death.Decided 17-7505DecidedClass action appeal deadlinesNutraceutical Corp. v. LambertIn Troy Lambert’s class-action suit against Nutraceutical, the Ninth Circuit allowed an exception to Rule 23(f)’s 14-day deadline for seeking permission to appeal a class-certification order. The Supreme Court ruled that the deadline cannot be extended on fairness grounds (equitable tolling), overturned the Ninth Circuit, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 17-1094DecidedJudges voting after deathJim Yovino, Fresno County Superintendent of Schools, Petitioner v. Aileen RizoThe Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Ninth Circuit’s ruling because it counted the vote of a judge who died before the court filed its opinion. The Court held that a deceased judge cannot participate in a decision when it is issued, so petitioner Yovino prevailed; the Court did not decide the Equal Pay Act question about using prior salary.Decided 18-272DecidedLimits on excessive finesTimbs v. IndianaThis case asked whether Indiana could seize Tyson Timbs’s $42,000 Land Rover through civil forfeiture after he used it to transport heroin, even though the vehicle was worth far more than the maximum criminal fine for his offense. The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.Decided 17-1091DecidedTaxes on federal pensionsDawson v. SteagerWest Virginia exempted retirement income for many state and local firefighters and law-enforcement officers but taxed James Dawson’s federal marshal retirement benefits. The Supreme Court ruled this unequal treatment violated 4 U.S.C. §111, overturned the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals’ judgment, and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 17-419DecidedIntellectual disability and executionBobby James Moore, Petitioner v. TexasThe Supreme Court overturned the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ ruling that Bobby James Moore was not intellectually disabled and was eligible for the death penalty, then sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded).Decided 18-443DecidedReligious access at executionsJefferson S. Dunn, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections, Applicant v. Domineque Hakim Marcelle RayThe Court denied Alabama’s request to lift a stay of Domineque Ray’s execution, leaving in place the lower court’s order that prevented the execution from going forward under the State’s policy. The Court concluded that Alabama had not shown Ray waited too long to raise his claim, because he had no reason before January 23 to know that his imam would receive less access to the execution chamber than the Christian chaplain.Decided 18A815DecidedSecret sales and patentsHelsinn Healthcare S. A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.Helsinn Healthcare’s patent dispute with Teva turned on whether a sale to a buyer bound to keep the invention secret could count as earlier information that defeats a patent (prior art) under the America Invents Act. The Supreme Court agreed with the Federal Circuit (affirmed), leaving its ruling in place.Decided 17-1229DecidedWhen truckers can avoid arbitrationNew Prime Inc. v. OliveiraNew Prime and truck driver Dominic Oliveira disputed whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s exemption for certain work contracts covered Oliveira’s independent-contractor agreement. The Supreme Court ruled that “contracts of employment” includes any agreement to perform work, so Oliveira’s agreement fell within the exemption, and agreed with the First Circuit (affirmed).Decided 17-340DecidedRobbery as a violent crimeStokeling v. United StatesThe Supreme Court agreed with the Eleventh Circuit that Florida robbery qualifies as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, a federal sentencing law, when it requires force to overcome a victim’s resistance—even if that force can be slight. The Court upheld the ruling against Denard Stokeling.Decided 17-5554DecidedSocial Security lawyer fee capCulbertson v. BerryhillLawyer Richard Culbertson challenged the Eleventh Circuit’s rule that Social Security fees for agency and court representation count together toward a 25% cap. The Supreme Court ruled the cap applies only to court representation, overturned the judgment and sent the case back to the lower court (remanded).Decided 17-773DecidedWho decides arbitration disputesHenry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc.In Henry Schein’s dispute with Archer & White, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act does not let a court reject an agreement assigning an arbitrator the question of whether a dispute must be arbitrated merely because the court considers the argument for arbitration baseless. It wiped out the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and sent the case back to that court (vacated and remanded).Decided 17-1272DecidedPolice immunity and later rulingsCity of Escondido, California, et al., Petitioners v. Marty EmmonsEmmons challenged force used during an arrest after an Escondido disturbance call; officers claimed qualified immunity (protection from suit unless law clearly barred their conduct). The Supreme Court overturned part of the appeals court’s ruling (reversed it in part), wiped out another part (vacated it in part), and sent the case back for more proceedings (remanded).Decided 17-1660DecidedIntellectual disability and executionTim Shoop, Warden, Petitioner v. Danny HillDanny Hill challenged Ohio’s rejection of his claim that intellectual disability barred his execution, and the Sixth Circuit ruled in his favor. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, wiped out the Sixth Circuit’s ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back for further proceedings (remanded).Decided 18-56DecidedMobile-home burglary sentencingUnited States v. StittThe Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Victor Stitt’s case. It decided that the Armed Career Criminal Act, a federal repeat-offender sentencing law, covers burglary of a vehicle or other structure adapted or commonly used for overnight stays.Decided 17-765DecidedProtected habitat on private landWeyerhaeuser Co. v. United States Fish and Wildlife Ser v.Weyerhaeuser challenged the Fish and Wildlife Service’s designation of land as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog. The Court ruled land must be habitat for the frog and courts may review the Service’s refusal to exclude it over costs; it wiped out the Fifth Circuit ruling (vacated it) and sent the case back (remanded).Decided 17-71DecidedAge discrimination by governmentsMount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. GuidoFormer Mount Lemmon Fire District employees John Guido and Dennis Rankin brought age-discrimination claims, raising whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s (ADEA’s) 20-employee minimum for private employers also applied to the district. The Supreme Court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that the ADEA covers state political subdivisions of any size and affirmed its ruling.Decided 17-587DecidedCensus citizenship question discoveryIn Re Department of Commerce, et al., ApplicantsThe Supreme Court temporarily stopped district-court discovery into Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s reasons for adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, including planned depositions of senior officials. The Court granted the Department of Commerce’s request for a stay and directed the government to file an expedited petition seeking further review, so the Department prevailed on the immediate request.Decided 18A375