SCOTUScast

On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads. The question in this case is whether the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 unconstitutionally delegates legislative power to a putatively private entity--Amtrak--by involving it in the creation of standards used to determine whether freight railroads are according the preference to Amtrak’s passenger trains that is required by federal law regarding the use of rail lines. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held unanimously that for purposes of determining the validity of the metrics and standards issued by Amtrak, Amtrak is a governmental entity. Justices Kennedy's opinion for the Court was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito also filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. The judgment of the D.C. Circuit was vacated and remanded for further proceedings. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Alexander “Sasha” Volokh, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Emory University School of Law. Professor Volokh received his JD and PhD in economics from Harvard University. He regularly teaches a course on law and economics of anti-trust and has participated as an expert witness in cases involving anti-trust or before the FTC.

On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Yates v. United States. This case concerns whether Mr. Yates’ order to his crew to throw undersized fish back into the Gulf of Mexico during the course of a government wildlife investigation violated the "document shredding provision" of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which makes it a crime for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to impede or obstruct an investigation. -- Justice Ginsburg announced the judgment of a divided Court, and delivered a plurality opinion concluding that for purposes of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a "tangible object" refers to an object used to record or preserve information. Justice Alito concurred, on somewhat narrower grounds. -- Justice Ginsburg was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas joined. The judgment of the Eleventh circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. -- To discuss the case, we have Todd Braunstein who is Counsel at WilmerHale.

On March 2, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The first question in the case is whether Arizona’s reliance on a commission to draw up congressional districts rather than its state legislature violates the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution as well as Title 2 of the U.S. Code. The second question is whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to file suit against the commission. -- To discuss the case, we have Derek Muller, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Pepperdine University School of Law.

On January 12, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet. The question in this case is whether the Natural Gas Act, which gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction to regulate natural gas sales in interstate commerce for resale (wholesale sales), preempts state-law antitrust claims which challenge industry practices that directly affect the wholesale natural gas market when those claims are asserted by litigants who purchased gas in retail transactions. -- To discuss the case, we have Daniel Lyons, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Boston College Law School.

On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Equal Opportunity Employment Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. This case asks whether knowledge of a required Title VII religious accommodation and an applicant or employee's clear notice of their "religious observance or practice" to their prospective or current employer is required for an employer to be held liable for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for choosing not to hire an applicant or dismissing an employee because of said "religious observance or practice." -- To discuss the case, we have Rachel Paulose, who is a former Senate Confirmed United States Attorney.

On March 3, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in City of Los Angeles v. Patel. This case presents two questions. The first question in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment permits facial challenges to municipal ordinances and statutes or only “as-applied” challenges. The second question is whether warrantless police searches of hotel guest registries, which include information that a guest is required by law to provide, are unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, who is a Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center.

On February 25, 2015 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission. The question in this case is whether the state-action exemption from federal antitrust laws applies to a state dental regulatory board when the majority of board members are dental professionals who are elected by other market participants--and thus potential competitors of anyone seeking entry into the dental industry. The Federal Trade Commission denied immunity to the Board and the Fourth Circuit affirmed that ruling on appeal. -- By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit. Because a controlling number of the Board’s decisionmakers are active market participants in the occupation the Board regulates, the Court explained, the Board can invoke state-action antitrust immunity only if it was subject to active supervision by the State--and that supervision is lacking here. -- Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Alexander “Sasha” Volokh, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Emory University School of Law. Professor Volokh received his JD and PhD in economics from Harvard University.

On March 4, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in King v. Burwell. The question in this highly anticipated case is whether the Affordable Care Act authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to offer tax credit subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Jonathan Adler who is the Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wellness Int’l Network, Limited v. Sharif, which presents two questions. The first is whether a bankruptcy court has power under Article I of the Constitution to determine, where an issue of state property law is involved, that property in the debtor’s possession belongs to the bankruptcy estate. The second question is whether, notwithstanding the limits of Article I authority, the consent of litigants can permit a bankruptcy court to exercise Article III judicial power--and if so, whether a litigant's continued participation in litigation can constitute implied consent. -- To discuss the case, we have Thomas Plank, who is the Joel A. Katz Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law.

On March 2, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ohio v. Clark. This case involves two questions. First, whether for purposes of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause an individual’s statutory obligation to report suspected child abuse qualifies that person as a law enforcement agent, and second, whether a child's statements given outside of court to his daycare teachers count as “testimonial” evidence under the Confrontation Clause. -- To discuss the case, we have Michael O’Shea, who is a Professor of Law at the Oklahoma City University College of Law.