SCOTUScast

On January 14, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison. This case presents two questions regarding the power of bankruptcy courts: One, does Article III of the Constitution permit bankruptcy courts to exercise the judicial power of the United States on the basis of litigant consent--and if so, can consent be implied by litigant conduct? The second question is whether a bankruptcy judge may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for de novo review by a district court in a “core” proceeding. -- To discuss the case, we have Thomas Plank, who is the Joel A. Katz Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law.

On January 21, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. The question in this case, which concerns the copyright for a screenplay on which the movie Raging Bull was based, is whether the defense of “laches”--that is, that the other side delayed too long in bringing its claim--can be asserted to bar a copyright claim for damages falling within the three-year statute of limitations prescribed by Congress. -- To discuss the case, we have Christina Mulligan, who is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Georgia School of Law.

On December 3, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Woods. The question in this case was twofold: (1) Whether a section of the Internal Revenue Code that imposes a penalty for underpayment of federal income tax where the underpayment results from an overstatement of cost basis applies when the IRS disallows losses claimed on the transfer of a partnership interest, for lack of economic substance; and (2) whether the lower courts had jurisdiction in this case to consider this valuation misstatement penalty. Here, the lower courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, agreed that the partnership transfers were properly disregarded as shams but held that the valuation-misstatement penalty did not apply. -- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit. In an opinion authored by Justice Scalia, the Court confirmed that the lower courts had jurisdiction to consider the penalty issue and held that the penalty did apply to what were essentially underpayments resulting from participation in a tax shelter. -- To discuss the case, we have Andy Grewal, who is an associate professor of law at the University of Iowa College of Law.

On January 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corporation. The question in this case is what constitutes “changing clothes” within the meaning of Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which specifies that an employer need not pay for time spent “changing clothes” if that time is excluded under a valid contract with a labor union. -- In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held by a vote of 9-0 that the time petitioners spend donning and doffing their protective gear is not compensable by operation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Chief Justice Roberts, as well as Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan joined in Justice Scalia's opinion. Justice Sotomayor also joined in the opinion, except as to footnote 7. -- To discuss the case, we have Lawrence C. DiNardo, who is a partner at Jones Day.

On January 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Burrage v. United States. This case concerns a 20-year mandatory minimum penalty that applies when a defendant distributes an unlawful drug and “death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance.” The question here is whether this provision applies when use of a covered drug supplied by the defendant contributes to--but is not a “but-for” cause of--the victim's death or injury. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a lower court jury instruction that the drug need only be a contributing cause of death. -- By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held that, at least where use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable under the 20-year penalty enhancement unless such use is a but-for cause of the death or injury. The Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, and Kagan joined Justice Scalia's opinion, and Justice Alito joined the opinion as to all except Part III-B. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring the judgment, which Justice Sotomayor joined. -- To discuss this case, we have John Malcolm, Director and Ed Gilbertson and Sherry Lindberg Gilbertson Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies.

On January 27, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper. The question in this case was whether immunity under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) can be denied to an air carrier sued on defamation-related tort theories without a determination that the air carrier's report to the Transportation Security Administration was materially false. -- In a decision issued by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held by a vote of 9-0 that immunity under the ATSA may not be denied without a determination that the disclosure at issue was materially false. Reasoning that the state courts made no such determination, below--and that any falsehood in the disclosure here would not have affected a reasonable security officer's assessment of the supposed threat--the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Colorado Supreme Court by a vote of 6-3 and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito joined Justice Sotomayor’s majority opinion. Justice Scalia filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Thomas and Kagan joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Andrew Grossman, who is an associate at Baker Hostetler as well as a Visiting Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. 

On January 21, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Harris v. Quinn. The question in this case is twofold: (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, compel in-home care providers to financially support a union to be their exclusive representative in petitioning the state for greater reimbursements from its Medicaid programs; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review. -- To discuss the case, we have Andrew Grossman, who is an associate at Baker Hostetler as well as a Visiting Fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. 

On January 22, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Paroline v. United States. The question in this child pornography case is 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? -- To discuss the case, we have John G. Malcolm, Director, Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation.

On January 14, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman. This case involves what is known as “personal jurisdiction,” which means that a court must possess jurisdiction over the parties to a given case before it may assert authority over them. There are a number of bases on which a court can acquire personal jurisdiction over a legal person, including a corporation. The question before the Supreme Court in this case is whether it violates due process for a federal court to exercise “general” personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation based solely on the fact that an indirect corporate subsidiary performs services on behalf of the foreign corporation in the state where the federal court is located. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that such an exercise of general personal jurisdiction was proper. -- By a vote of 9-0, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit. In an opinion delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that Daimler cannot be sued in California for injuries allegedly caused by conduct of its Argentinian subsidiary when that conduct took place entirely outside of the United States. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. -- To discuss the case, we have Evan Young, who is a Senior Associate at the Austin office of Baker Botts. It should be noted that all expressions of opinion are those of Mr. Young rather than Baker Botts.

On January 13, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Law v. Siegel. The question presented is whether the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in allowing a bankruptcy court to surcharge a debtor's constitutionally protected homestead property to cover the bankruptcy trustee's litigation expenses incurred as a result of the debtor's misconduct. -- To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, who is an adjunct professor at the New York Law School.