SCOTUScast

On October 8, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Warger v. Shauers. The question in this case is whether, under Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), 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). -- To discuss the case, we have Rachel Paulose, who is a former United States Attorney.

On October 15, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. This case concerns whether a district court’s factual finding in support of its construction of a patent claim term may be reviewed de novo, as the Federal Circuit requires (and as the panel explicitly did in this case), or only for clear error, as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) requires. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Kristen Osenga, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Richmond School of Law.

On October 14, 2014, 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. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Alexander Volokh, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Emory University School of Law.

On October 7, 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 is required to include evidence supporting federal jurisdiction in the notice of removal, or whether it is enough to allege the required “short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” -- To discuss the case, we have Tyler Green, who is Associate Chief Counsel at the U.S. Chamber's Litigation Center.

On October 7, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in , which concerns whether the Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy, which generally prohibits inmates from growing beards save for a narrow health-based exception, violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) by impermissibly burdening the religious liberty of a Muslim inmate seeking to grow a half-inch beard for religious reasons. -- To discuss the case, we have Jordan Lorence, who is senior counsel and senior vice-president of the Office of Strategic Initiatives for Alliance Defending Freedom.

October 6th will mark the first day of the 2014 Supreme Court term. Thus far, the Court's docket includes major cases involving the First Amendment, separation of powers, election law, criminal law, and more. -- Notable cases include Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama and Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, which concern whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans were unconstitutional; Elonis v. U.S., which concerns when it is a federal crime to make threatening statements, including messages or postings on social networking web sites such as Facebook; Yates v. U.S., which concerns whether Mr. Yates was given fair notice that throwing undersized fish into the Gulf of Mexico would violate the "document shredding provision" of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act; and Zivotofsky v. Kerry, which concerns Congress's vs. the President's authority over passports and foreign affairs. -- The Court is also likely to add other significant cases, potentially including King v. Burwell, concerning whether the IRS may extend tax-credit subsidies to offset the cost of coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government (rather than state-created exchanges) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; TheEpiscopal Church v. The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, which concerns the resolution of church property disputes; and one or more same-sex marriage cases. In addition to these cases and others, the panelists will discuss the current composition and the future of the Court. -- The Federalist Society hosted this panel discussion on September 23, 2014 at the National Press Club. -- Featuring: Mr. William Consovoy, Partner, Wiley Rein; Prof. Orin Kerr, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; Ms. Virginia Seitz, Partner, Sidley Austin; Ms. Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network; and Mr. Adam White, Counsel, Boyden Gray & Associates. Moderator: Mr. Adam Liptak, Supreme Court Correspondent, New York Times.

On June 23, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency. The question in this case was whether the EPA permissibly determined that its regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles triggered permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases (“GHGs”). -- Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to parts I and II, which held that the EPA could not require a source to obtain a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or Title V permit solely on the basis that the source emits GHGs. The Court also concluded, however, that the EPA could reasonably interpret the Clean Air Act to allow for the regulation of GHG emissions from sources already subject to regulation under the PSD and Title V program. -- Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined the opinion of the Court in full. Justices Thomas and Alito joined the opinion as to parts I, II-A, and II-B-1. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined as to Part II-B-2. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which Justice Thomas joined. The judgement of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was affirmed in part and reversed in part. -- To discuss these cases, we have Robert R. Gasaway, who is a partner at the law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued opinions in two property rights cases, Limelight Networks v. Akamai Technologies and Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments. -- The question in Limelight v. Akamai Technologies was whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a defendant may be held liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even though no one has committed direct infringement under Section 271(a). -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court held unanimously that a defendant is not liable for inducing infringement when no one has directly infringed under Section 271(a) or any other statute. The decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was reversed and the case remanded. -- The questions in Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments were (1) Whether the Federal Circuit’s acceptance of ambiguous patent claims with multiple reasonable interpretations – so long as the ambiguity is not “insoluble” by a court – defeats the statutory requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming; and (2) whether the presumption of validity dilutes the requirement of particular and distinct patent claiming. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court unanimously rejected the Federal Circuit’s “insolubly ambiguous” standard and held instead that a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the patent specification and prosecution history, failed to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. With respect to the presumption of validity, the Court determined that in this case it ultimately did not affect the particularity requirement. The decision of the Federal Circuit was vacated and the case remanded for consideration under the standard articulated by the Supreme Court. -- To discuss the case, we have Aaron M. Panner, Partner, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C and Thomas G. Saunders, Partner, WilmerHale.

On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International. The question in the case is whether, for purposes of obtaining a patent, claims to computer-implemented inventions – including claims to a computer-implemented system for mitigating settlement risks – are directed to patent-eligible subject matter within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 101, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held unanimously that the claims at issue were drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computer implementation failed to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Adam Mossoff, Professor of Law and Co-Director of Academic Programs and Senior Scholar at the Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property, George Mason University School of Law.

On June 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo. This case involves the question of whether, under sections 101 and 106 of the Copyright Act, a company “publicly performs” a copyrighted television program--a privilege normally reserved to the copyright holder--when it retransmits a broadcast of that program to thousands of paid subscribers over the Internet. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that Aereo is not simply an “equipment supplier” and that it performs petitioners’ works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause. Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Scalia authored a dissenting opinion which Justices Thomas and Alito joined. The decision of the Second Circuit was reversed. -- To discuss the case, we have Mark Schultz, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Southern Illinois University School of Law.