SCOTUScast

On April 23, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Paroline v. United States. The question in this child pornography case was what, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant's conduct and the victim's harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2259. --

In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that restitution is proper under §2259 only to the extent the defendant’s offense proximately caused a victim’s losses. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts authored a dissenting opinion, which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined. Justice Sotomayor wrote a separate dissenting opinion. By a vote of 5-4, the decision of the Fifth Circuit was vacated and remanded. --

To discuss the case, we have John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation and Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law, University of Utah College Of Law.

On May 5, 2014, The Supreme Court announced its decision in Robers v. United States. This case involves the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, which requires one who has obtained property fraudulently to return it or (if return is not possible) pay “an amount equal to . . .the value of the property” less “the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned.” The question here is whether a defendant who fraudulently obtained a loan, for which he provided a mortgage as collateral, returned “any part of the property” when his lenders foreclosed on the mortgage. --

In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Breyer, the Court held that the statutory phrase “any part of the property” refers only to the specific property lost by the victim, which in the case of a fraudulently obtained loan is the money lent. Thus, no part of the property is returned until the collateral is sold and the victim receives money from the sale. Thus, any amount due is reduced not by the value of the collateral when the victim received it, but by the value of the proceeds the victim received when the collateral was sold. The decision of the Seventh Circuit was affirmed. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Ginsburg joined. --

To discuss the case, we have Peter Thomson, who is a partner at Fowler Rodriguez.

On April 21, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca Cola Company. This case involves the Lanham Act, which allows individuals to sue for harms resulting from misleading representations of goods or services in commerce. The question in this case is whether a private party can bring a Lanham Act claim challenging a product label that complies with regulations under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. William Kratzke, who is the Cecil C. Humphreys Professor of Law at the University of Memphis Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law.

On April 23, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger. The question in this case is whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly interpreted the preemption provision of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to apply to state statutes of repose--which typically impose a final time limit for bringing suit a certain amount of time after the defendant took action--in addition to state statutes of limitations, which simply impose time limits based on when a particular cause of action accrues. -- To discuss the case, we have Allyson Ho, who is a partner at Morgan Lewis.

On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. The question in this case was how to appropriately determine a party's standing to bring a cause of action for false advertising under the Lanham Act. -- In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Scalia, the Supreme Court held that Static Control adequately pleaded the elements of a Lanham Act cause of action for false advertising. The decision of the Sixth Circuit was affirmed. -- To discuss the case, we have Professor David Olson, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Boston College Law School.

On April 22, 2014 the Supreme Court issued its decision in Navarette v. California. The question in this case was whether the Fourth Amendment requires an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunk or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle. -- In a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the traffic stop in this case complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck’s driver was intoxicated. Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. The judgment of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, First Appellate District, was affirmed. -- To discuss the case, we have Erin Sheley, who is a Visiting Associate Professor at the George Washington University School of Law. 

On May 5, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway. The question in the case was whether the practice of opening a town meeting with prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held by a vote of 5-4 that the town's prayer practice did not violate the Establishment Clause. Justice Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in full; Justices Scalia and Thomas joined except for Part II-B; Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Thomas concurred in part and concurred in the judgment, joined in part by Justice Scalia. Justice Breyer dissented alone; Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor joined. The opinion of the Second Circuit was reversed. -- To discuss the case, we have Kim Colby, who is Senior Counsel for the Christian Legal Society.

On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cellphone privacy cases, Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie. The question in Riley v. California is whether evidence obtained in a search of petitioner's cell phone and admitted at petitioner's trial violated the petitioner's Fourth Amendment rights. The question in United States v. Wurie is whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police, without obtaining a warrant, to review the call log of a cellphone found on a person who has been lawfully arrested. -- To discuss the case, we have Orin Kerr, who is the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School. 

On April 22, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. 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. -- To discuss the case, we have Babette Boliek, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Pepperdine University School of Law.

On April 23, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Clarke. The question in this case is whether an unsupported allegation that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a summons for an improper purpose entitles an opponent of the summons to an evidentiary hearing to question IRS officials about their reasons for issuing the summons. -- To discuss the case, we have Kristin Gutting, an associate professor of law at the Charleston School of Law.