SCOTUScast

On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. The question in this case was whether, under the terms of the Truth in Lending Act, a borrower may rescind a mortgage transaction merely by notifying the lender in writing within three years of the finalization of the transaction, or must instead file a lawsuit within that same time period. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia for a unanimous Court, the Court held that the borrower need only provide written notice to the lender within the three-year period, not file suit. The decision of the Eighth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. -- To discuss the case, we have John Ohlendorf, who is an associate at the law firm Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v. Owens. The question in this case was whether a defendant seeking removal to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction was required to include in the notice of removal evidence supporting the minimum “amount in controversy” required for diversity jurisdiction, or whether it was enough simply to allege the requisite amount in the notice of removal. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that a defendant’s notice of removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction need not include evidentiary submissions demonstrating that the amount in controversy requirement is met; a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold is sufficient. -- Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for the Court was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Kennedy and Kagan joined, and which Justice Thomas joined except for the last sentence. Justice Thomas also filed a dissenting opinion. The judgment of the Tenth Circuit was vacated and the case remanded. -- To discuss the case, we have Tyler Green, who is Associate Chief Counsel at the U.S. Chamber's Litigation Center.

On January 12, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. This case involves a First Amendment challenge to the town of Gilbert, Arizona’s sign code, which effectively treats certain religious signs differently than other non-religious signs. The question is whether Gilbert’s assertion that it has no discriminatory motive legitimizes the facially neutral code’s disparate effect on religious signs. -- To discuss the case, we have Hans A. von Spakovsky, who is Senior Legal Fellow and Manager, Civil Justice Reform Initiative, The Heritage Foundation.

On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Warger v. Shauers. The question in this case was whether a party moving for a new trial may rely upon juror testimony regarding statements made during deliberations that suggest juror dishonesty during voir dire (the process by which potential jurors are questioned in order to determine if they are suitable to serve on a particular jury). -- Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of a unanimous Court, which held that Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror’s affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror’s dishonesty during voir dire. The judgment of the Eighth Circuit was affirmed. -- To discuss the case, we have Rachel Paulose, who is a former Senate Confirmed United States Attorney.

On December 2, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Whitfield v. United States. This case concerns 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), which provides a minimum sentence of ten years and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for a bank robber who forces another person “to accompany him” during the robbery or while fleeing the scene. The question is whether the requirement that the robber force another person “to accompany him” requires proof of more than a minimal movement of the victim. -- To discuss the case, we have Professor John Stinneford, who is Associate Professor of Law and Assistant Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the University of Florida Levin College of Law.

On January 20, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. This case concerned whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim may be reviewed de novo--the standard applied by the Federal Circuit in this case--or must instead be reviewed only for clear error, in keeping with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held by a vote of 7-2 that when reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings. -- Justice Breyer’s opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, which Justice Alito joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Kristen Osenga, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law.

On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk. This case concerned whether time employees spend undergoing mandatory security screenings after work is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, which clarifies that certain activities are generally not compensable working time under the FLSA. -- Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, which held that the time that employees spent waiting to undergo (and undergoing) security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Kagan joined. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was reversed. -- To discuss the case, we have Karen Harned, who is the Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.

On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation. The question presented in the case is twofold: (1) whether a state violates the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act) by “discriminating against a rail carrier” when it requires rail carriers to pay a sales-and-use tax but exempts railroads’ competitors from paying the same tax; and (2) whether, in resolving a claim of unlawful tax discrimination under the 4-R Act, a court should consider the state's broader tax system rather than focusing only on the challenged tax provision. -- To discuss the case, we have Andy Grewal, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law.

On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Gelboim v. Bank of America Corporation. This case concerns whether and in what circumstances the dismissal of all claims in one civil action that has been consolidated with other cases for pre-trial purposes through Multi-District Litigation, is final and immediately appealable? -- To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an Olin-Searle-Smith Fellow and Constitutional Law Center Fellow at Stanford Law School.

On December 3, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Young v. United Parcel Service. This case concerns whether, and in what circumstances, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer that provides work accommodations to employees who are not pregnant but have work limitations, to provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who share similar abilities and limitations. -- To discuss the case, we have Teresa Collett, who is a Professor of Law at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.