SCOTUScast

On December 10, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two related cases: United States v. Wong and United States v. June. -- In United States v. Wong the question is whether the six-month time bar for filing suit in federal court under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling. In U.S. v. June, the question is whether the two-year time limit for filing an administrative claim with the appropriate federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b), is subject to equitable tolling. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Paul Figley, who is the Associate Director of the Legal Writing and Rhetoric Program at the American University Washington College of Law.

On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in 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. -- 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 November 3, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Zivotofsky v. Kerry. This case concerns Section 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 2003, which directs the Secretary of State, upon request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in “Israel” on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport. The question before the Court is whether this provision unconstitutionally infringes on the President’s power to recognize foreign sovereigns. -- To discuss the case, we have Eugene Kontorovich, who is a Professor of Law at the Northwestern University School of Law.

On December 1, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Elonis v. United States. The question in this case is twofold. First, this case asks whether the First Amendment requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten in order to convict someone of threatening another person under 18 U.S. C. § 875(c), or whether it is sufficient to demonstrate that a “reasonable person” would consider the statement to be threatening. The second question in this case is whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, conviction of another person requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten. -- To discuss the case, we have Kent S. Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

On November 10, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in T-Mobile South, LLC v. City of Roswell. This case concerns whether a document from a state or local government stating that an application has been denied, but listing no reasons for the denial, can satisfy the Communications Act’s “in writing” requirement. -- To discuss the case, we have Megan Brown, who is a partner at WileyRein.

On November 5, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Yates v. United States. This case concerns whether Mr. Yates was given fair notice that throwing undersized fish back into the Gulf of Mexico during the course of an investigation would violate 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. -- To discuss the case, we have Todd Braunstein who is Counsel at WilmerHale.

On November 5, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Johnson v. United States. This case concerns whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. To discuss the case, we have Richard Myers who is the Henry Brandis Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law.

On November 3, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. This case concerns Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which authorizes suit by a purchaser of securities issued under a registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission--if the registration statement “contained an untrue statement of material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statement therein not misleading.” -- The question here is whether a Section 11 plaintiff may plead that a statement of opinion was “untrue” merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, as the Sixth Circuit has concluded, or whether the plaintiff also must allege that the statement was subjectively false – requiring allegations that the speaker’s genuinely held opinion was different from the one expressed – as the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have held. -- To discuss the case, we have George Conway, who is a partner in the Litigation Department of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.

On October 8, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk. This case concerns whether time employees spend undergoing mandatory security screenings after work is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, which clarifies that certain activities are generally not compensable working time under the FLSA. -- 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 October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Heien v. North Carolina. The question in this case is whether a police officer’s mistaken understanding of a law can provide the reasonable suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop. -- To discuss the case, we have Ryan Scott, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.