Case Info: Hungary v. Simon | Date Decided: 2/21/25 | Case No. 23-867

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that  proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the  expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
2. Whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the  Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference.
3. Whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to  affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law  have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Holding: Alleging commingling of funds alone cannot satisfy the commercial nexus requirement of the FSIA’s expropriation exception.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Joshua S. Glasgow, Buffalo, N. Y.; and Sopan Joshi, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
• For respondents: Shay Dvoretzky, Washington, D. C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Case Info: Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath | Date Decided: 2/21/25 | Case No. 23-1127

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the E-rate program are "claims" under the False Claims Act.

Holding: The E-Rate reimbursement requests at issue are “claims” under the False Claims Act because the Government “provided” (at a minimum) a “por­tion” of the money applied for by transferring more than $100 million from the Treasury into the Fund.

Result: Affirmed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Kavanaugh joined, and in which Justice Alito joined as to Part I. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Allyson N. Ho, Dallas, Tex.
• For respondent: Tejinder Singh, Washington, D. C.; and Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Case Info: Williams v. Reed | Date Decided: 2/21/25 | Case No. 23-191

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.

Holding: Where a state court’s application of a state exhaustion require­ment in effect immunizes state officials from §1983 claims challenging delays in the administrative process, state courts may not deny those §1983 claims on failure-to-exhaust grounds.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Result: Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett joined as to Part II.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Adam G. Unikowsky, Washington, D. C.
• For respondent: Edmund G. LaCour, Jr., Solicitor General, Montgomery, Ala.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Case Info: Barnes v. Felix | Case No. 23-1239 | Date Argued: 1/22/25 | Date Decided: 5/15/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from using "unreasonable" force. U.S. Const. amend. IV. In Graham v. Connor, this Court held that reasonableness depends on "the totality of the circumstances." 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (quotation marks omitted). But four circuits-the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth-cabin Graham. Those circuits evaluate whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred under the "moment of the threat doctrine," which evaluates the reasonableness of an officer's actions only in the narrow window when the officer's safety was threatened, and not based on events that precede the moment of the threat. In contrast, eight circuits-the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits-reject the moment of the threat doctrine and follow the totality of the circumstances approach, including evaluating the officer's actions leading up to the use of force.

In the decision below, Judge Higginbotham concurred in his own majority opinion, explaining that the minority approach "lessens the Fourth Amendment's protection of the American public" and calling on this Court "to resolve the circuit divide over the application of a doctrine deployed daily across this country." Pet. App. 10a-16a (Higginbotham, J., concurring).

Question Presented: Whether courts should apply the moment of the threat doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.

Holding: A claim that a law enforcement officer used excessive force during a stop or arrest is analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, which re­quires that the force deployed be objectively reasonable from the per­spective of a reasonable officer at the scene. The inquiry into the reasonableness of police force re­quires analyzing the totality of the circumstances. That analysis demands careful attention to the facts and circum­stances relating to the incident. Most notable here, the totality of the circumstances inquiry has no time limit.

Result: Vacated and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: 9-0. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, in which Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky, Washington, D. C.; and Zoe A. Jacoby, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
• For respondents: Charles L. McCloud, Washington, D. C.; and Lanora C. Pettit, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Austin, Tex. (for Texas, et al., as amici curiae.)

Case Info: Cunningham v. Cornell University | Case No. 23-1007 | Date Argued: 1/22/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1) (C), prohibits a plan fiduciary from "engag[ing] in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest." The statute elsewhere defines "party in interest" broadly to include a variety of parties that may contract with or provide services to a plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1002(14)(B).

The Eighth and Ninth Circuits have applied the Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have, on the other hand, required plaintiffs to allege additional elements to state a claim, because a "literal reading" of 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C) would purportedly produce "results that are inconsistent with ERISA's statutory purpose." Albert v. Oshkosh Corp., 47 F.4th 570, 585 (7th Cir. 2022).

Question Presented: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision's text.

Holding: To state a claim under §1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need only plausi­bly allege the elements contained in that provision itself, without ad­dressing potential §1108 exemptions.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Advocates:

• For petitioners: Xiao Wang, Charlottesville, Va.; and Yaira Dubin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
• For respondents: Nicole A. Saharsky, Washington, D.C.

Website Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Opinion Summary: Here.

Case Info: McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp. | Case No. 23-1226 | Date Argued: 1/21/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioner: Matthew W.H. Wessler, Washington, D. C.
• For respondents: Joseph R. Palmore, Washington, D. C.; and Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)

Case Info: FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. | Case No. 23-1187 | Date Argued: 1/21/25

Link to Docket: Here.

Background:

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, Div. A, 123 Stat. 1776, requires a person to obtain authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before introducing a new tobacco product into interstate commerce. If FDA denies an application for authorization, "any person adversely affected by such * * * denial may file a petition for judicial review of such * * * denial with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or for the circuit in which such person resides or has their principal place of business." 21 U.S.C. 387l(a)(l). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined that a manufacturer may seek judicial review in that circuit even if it neither resides nor has its principal place of business there, so long as its petition is joined by a seller of its products, such as a gas station or convenience store, based in the circuit.

Question Presented: Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the D.C. Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer's products that is located within that circuit.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Vivek Suri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
• For respondents: Ryan J. Watson, Washington, D. C.

Case Info: TikTok Inc. v. Garland | Date Decided: 1/17/25 | Case No. 24–656

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to Petitioners, violates the First Amendment.

Holding: The challenged provisions do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: The Supreme Court wrote a Per Curiam unanimous opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote an opinion that concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch wrote an opinion that concurred in the judgment.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners TikTok Inc., et al.: Noel J. Francisco, Washington, D. C.
• For petitioners Firebaugh, et al.: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Melo Park, Cal.
• For respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Case Info: E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera | Date Decided: 1/15/25 | Case No. 23-217

Link to Docket: Here.

Question Presented: Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the  applicability of an FLSA exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence-as six  circuits hold-or clear and convincing evidence, as the Fourth Circuit alone holds.

Holding: The preponderance of the evidence standard applies when an em­ployer seeks to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the FLSA.

Result: Reversed and remanded.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Kavanaugh delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Gor­such filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.; and Aimee W. Brown, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
• For respondents: Lauren E. Bateman, Washington, D. C.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Case Info: Royal Canin U. S. A. v. Wullschleger | Date Decided: 1/15/25 | Case No. 23-677

Link to Docket: Here.

Questions Presented:

1. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint defeats federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction.
2. Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Holding: When a plaintiff amends her complaint to delete the federal-law claims that enabled removal to federal court, leaving only state-law claims behind, the federal court loses supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, and the case must be remanded to state court.

Result: Affirmed.

Voting Breakdown: Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Link to Opinion: Here.

Oral Advocates:

• For petitioners: Katherine B. Wellington, Boston, Mass.
• For respondents: Ashley C. Keller, Chicago, Ill.

Website Link to Oral Argument: Here.

Apple Podcast Link to Oral Argument: Here.