Scotus Tag

Home > Posts tagged "Scotus"

Posted 05 Mar 2025 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Yesterday, in San Francisco v. EPA, in a win for local governments, the Supreme Court held that the EPA is not authorized to impose “end result” provisions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and instead it is the EPA’s responsibility to “determin[e] what steps a permittee must take to ensure that water quality standards are met.”  This case helps ensure local governments understand their obligations under the Clean Water Act (CWA).  It will also allow them take advantage...

Posted 25 Feb 2025 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in Lackey v. Stinnie, the Supreme Court held that a party does not “prevail” under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for the purposes of attorney’s fees based on obtaining a preliminary injunction, even if the defendant’s conduct later moots the case.  This case was a win for local governments as attorney’s fees awards can be significant and a contrary result would undermine the public fisc. In this case, a group of Virginia drivers whose licenses were suspended due to their failure...

Posted 15 Jan 2025 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

In a victory for local governments, the Supreme Court held that to prove that an exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime requirements apply, an employer need only do so by a preponderance of the evidence rather than a more demanding clear and convincing evidence standard. Generally, the FLSA provides that employers must pay minimum wage and overtime pay at a rate of time and a half for work done above 40 hours per week.   There...

Posted 09 Jul 2024 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984) in a case that will have far-reaching implications for the federal administrative state.  In doing so, the majority invoked Marbury v. Madison’s pronouncement that it is “emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”  As far as the rationale, the Court concluded that Chevron violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and...

Posted 20 Jun 2024 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in a short per curiam (unauthored) opinion the Supreme Court decided Gonzalez v. Trevino, offering guidance as to how a plaintiff may prove a retaliatory arrest claim even where probable cause existed for the arrest.  The decision follows the Court’s 2019 decision in Nieves v. Bartlett where the Court held that although a plaintiff must generally plead and prove the absence or probable cause to bring a First Amendment retaliation claim, that rule was subject to a “narrow qualification”...

Posted 31 May 2024 in Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Yesterday, in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the Supreme Court unanimously held that while the government is free to “‘say what it wishes’” and “select the views that it wants to express,” it may not “wield its power… in order to punish or suppress” speech.  In this case, the Court found the NRA (at the motion to dismiss stage) had plausibly alleged that a former superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS), Vullo, had violated the First...

Posted 17 Apr 2024 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in a 6-3 opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court created a new standard under Title VII for employee transfers, rejecting any heightened harm requirement – such as materiality or significant disadvantage - that lower courts have applied.  However, the Court did not go so far as to adopt the Petitioner’s proposed rule in the case which would have found any transfer, regardless of harm would be actionable under Title VII if based on a...

Posted 12 Apr 2024 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court issued a narrow holding in Sheetz v. El Dorado County, a Takings case involving impact fees.  The Court held that legislatively enacted impact fees are not exempt from Nollan and Dolan but remanded to the lower court on all other arguments. This case involves the County of El Dorado’s traffic impact mitigation fee, which it adopted via General Plan, to require new development to help finance the construction of new roads and widen...

Posted 15 Mar 2024 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in Lindke v. Freed, the Supreme Court set forth the test for when local government officials are considered “state actors” for the purposes of the First Amendment when they post on social media.  The case is a win for local governments as the test provided by the Supreme Court safeguards the free speech rights of elected officials while balancing the rights of their citizens.  More importantly, it is objective and focuses on authority as the test to determine if...

Posted 03 Jul 2023 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

On June 30th, in 303 Creative v. Elenis, in a significant decision that will impact antidiscrimination laws around the country, the Supreme Court held that Colorado’s public accommodation law violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by compelling the speech of a business owner engaged in expressive activity.  This case was a fight between whether the creation and sale of a wedding website to the public is considered speech, which would be protected under the First Amendment, or commercial activity...