SCOTUScast

On April 28, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lane v. Franks. The question in this case is twofold: First, whether the government is categorically free under the First Amendment to retaliate against a public employee for truthful sworn testimony that was compelled by subpoena and was not a part of the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities; and second, whether qualified immunity precludes a claim for damages in such an action. -- To discuss the case, we have Josh Blackman, who is an Assistant Professor of Law Professor at South Texas College of Law.

On April 21, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital. The question in this case is whether post-judgment discovery in aid of enforcing a judgment against a foreign state can be ordered with respect to all assets of a foreign state regardless of their location or use, as held by the Second Circuit, or is limited to assets located in the United States that are potentially subject to execution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., as held by the Seventh, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits. -- To discuss the case, we have Prof. Michael D. Ramsey, Hugh and Hazel Darling Foundation Professor of Law, Director, International & Comparative Law Programs, University of San Diego School of Law.

On April 22, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. The question in this case is twofold. First, whether, to challenge a speech-suppressive law, a person whose speech is prohibited must prove that authorities would definitely and successfully prosecute him, as the Sixth Circuit holds, or whether the court should presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists absent the law falling into disuse or a firm commitment by prosecutors not to enforce the law, as seven other Circuits hold. The second question is whether the Sixth Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with the Eighth Circuit, that state laws prohibiting “false” political speech are not subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review as long as the speaker maintains that his speech is true, even if others who enforce the law disagree. -- To discuss the case, we have John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation.

On April 23, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in White v. Woodall. The case presents two questions: (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit violated the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act by granting habeas relief because a Kentucky trial court refused to issue an instruction to the jury telling it not to draw adverse inferences from the defendant’s silence at the sentencing phase in a death penalty case; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit violated the harmless error standard in Brecht v. Abrahamson in ruling that the absence of a no adverse inference instruction was not harmless in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt and in the face of a guilty pleas to the crimes and aggravators. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that, because the Kentucky Supreme Court’s rejection of respondent’s Fifth Amendment adverse inference claim was not objectively unreasonable, the Sixth Circuit erred in granting the writ of habeas and the Court need not reach the harmless error issue. Chief Justice Roberts as well as Justices Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Breyer authored a dissenting opinion, which Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Robert Blecker who is a Professor of Criminal Law and 8th Amendment Studies at New York Law School and author of The Death of Punishment.

On April 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg. The question here is whether the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (the “ADA”) preempts Ginsburg’s claim that Northwest Air Lines breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when it unilaterally terminated his membership in Northwest’s frequent-flier program. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Alito, the Court unanimously held that the Airline Deregulation Act preempts a state-law claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing if it seeks to enlarge the contractual obligation that the parties voluntarily adopt. The opinion of the Ninth Circuit was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. -- To discuss the case, we have Lee Strang, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Toledo College of Law. 

On February 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in in Walden v. Fiore. This case involves a dispute over personal jurisdiction. For a court to validly adjudicate a dispute, it must possess jurisdiction over the parties before it. Here the question is whether due process permits a federal court in Nevada to exercise personal jurisdiction over a law enforcement defendant in Atlanta, Georgia regarding an allegedly improper seizure of the plaintiffs’ gambling winnings that took place in transit at Atlanta’s airport. In addition, there is a question of whether Nevada is a proper venue to adjudicate the parties’ dispute under the terms of an applicable federal statute. -- In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the United States District Court for the District of Nevada lacked personal jurisdiction over the petitioner. Given the lack of jurisdiction, the Court did not reach the venue issue. The decision of the Ninth Circuit was reversed. -- To discuss the case, we have Paul Stancil, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law.

On March 4, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Lawson v. FMR LLC. The question in the case is whether the Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s retaliation protections for whistleblowers extend to employees of privately owned contractors who are working for public companies. -- Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's whistleblower protection does extend to employees of a public company’s private contractors and subcontractors. The decision of the First Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Breyer, and Justice Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justices Scalia and Thomas joined in principal part. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in principal part and concurring in the judgment, which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Kennedy and Alito. -- To discuss the case, we have Jessie Liu, who is a partner at Jenner & Block.

On April 1, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Loughrin v. United States. The question in this case is whether the government must prove that a defendant intended to defraud a bank and expose it to risk of loss in every prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, or whether the government need only prove that a defendant knowingly attempted to defraud someone “to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” -- To discuss the case, we have Todd Braunstein, who is counsel at the law firm WilmerHale.

On March 26, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wood v. Moss. This lawsuit against several Secret Service agents presents two questions: First, did the court of appeals err in denying qualified immunity to agents protecting the president by evaluating the respondent’s claim of viewpoint discrimination at a high level of generality, and concluding that pro- and anti-Bush demonstrators should have been positioned an equal distance from the President while he was dining on the outdoor patio and while he was travelling by motorcade? Second, have respondents adequately pleaded viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment when no factual allegations support their claim of discriminatory motive and there was an obvious security-based rationale for moving the nearby anti-Bush group and not the farther-away pro-Bush group? -- To discuss the case, we have Patrick Garry, who is a professor of law at the University of South Dakota School of Law.

On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Quality Stores. The question in this case is whether severance payments made to employees whose employment was involuntarily terminated are taxable under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (“FICA”), 26 U.S.C. 3101 et seq. In an 8-0 opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that severance payments to employees who are involuntarily terminated are taxable wages for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. The judgment of the Sixth circuit was reversed and remanded. Every justice joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion except for Justice Kagan, who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. -- To discuss the case, we have Kristin Hickman, Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law; Associate Director, Corporate Institute at the University of Minnesota Law School.