SCOTUScast

On December 10, 2013, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Sprint Communications Company v. Jacobs. The question in this case is whether the doctrine of Younger abstention--which requires that federal courts generally refrain from halting and supplanting state judicial proceedings--applies not only to state proceedings that are “coercive,” such as a state’s enforcement of its criminal laws, but also to state proceedings that are “remedial,” such as a state utility board’s order that Sprint pay certain intrastate access charges. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had upheld a lower court ruling thatYounger abstention was appropriate. -- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Eighth Circuit. In an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that the lower courts erred in abstaining under Younger, because the case did not fall within any of the three classes of exceptional cases for which Younger abstention was appropriate. -- To discuss the case, we have Paul Salamanca, who is the Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. It should be noted that Professor Salamanca, along with a group of other Law Professors who teach and write on issues concerning federal courts, submitted an amicus brief in support of the petitioner.

On December 9, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper. The question in this case is whether immunity under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act 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. -- 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 November 4, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument 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. -- To discuss the case, we have Paul Stancil, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Illinois College of Law.

Erika BirgOn December 2, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in BG Group PLC v. Republic of Argentina. The question in this case is whether, in disputes involving a multi-staged dispute resolution process, a court or the arbitrator determines whether a precondition to arbitration has been satisfied. -- To discuss the case, we have Erika Birg, who is a partner at Nelson Mullins. 

On December 3, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument 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. -- To discuss the case, we have Lee Strang, who is a Professor of Law at the University of Toledo College of Law. 

On October 15, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument 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. -- 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 November 13, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall. The question in the case is whether an employer and union are prohibited by the Labor-Management Relations Act from entering into a “neutrality agreement” under which the employer exercises its freedom of speech by promising to remain neutral to union organizing, its property rights by granting union representatives limited access to the employer’s property and employees, and its freedom of contract by obtaining the union’s promise to forego its rights to picket, boycott, or otherwise put pressure on the employer’s business. -- To discuss the case, we have Mr. Luke Wake, Staff Attorney, NFIB Small Business Legal Center.

On November 5, 2013, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. The question in the case is whether, when a declaratory judgment of non-infringement is sought by a patent licensee under the Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, the burden of proof lies with the licensee to prove non-infringement or, as is traditional in patent litigation suits, with the patent owner, to prove infringement. -- To discuss the case, we have Professor Gregory Dolin, Co-director, Center for Medicine and Law, University of Baltimore School of Law.