Scotus Tag

Home > Posts tagged "Scotus" (Page 3)

Posted 13 Jan 2022 in Case Notes Written by: Lisa Soronen

In National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Department of Labor the U.S. Supreme Court disallowed the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) emergency rule from going into effect temporarily, which requires those who work for employers with 100 or more employees to be vaccinated. Such employers instead could require unvaccinated employees to be tested weekly for COVID-19 and wear a mask. In Biden v. Missouri the Court allowed to go into effect temporarily while litigation in the lower courts continues, an...

Posted 25 Oct 2021 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

On October 18th, the Supreme Court granted qualified immunity to officers in two cases on a per curiam basis, summarily reversing lower courts in each: Rivas-Villas v. Cortesluna and City of Tahlequah v. Austin.  IMLA filed an amicus brief in the Rivas - Villegas v. Cortesluna case in support of the officers.  In both cases, the Supreme Court relied on video evidence and therefore undisputed facts.  And in both cases, the Court concluded the law was not clearly established given...

Posted 30 Jun 2021 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court summarily reversed the Eighth Circuit’s grant of qualified immunity in Lombardo v. City of St. Louis.  While the majority’s decision to reverse left a lot to still be decided, the case may be indicative of the Supreme Court’s attempt to signal to lower courts that qualified immunity is less protective than some courts are currently applying it.  Alternatively, perhaps Justice Alito is right in his dissent that the majority did not want...

Posted 24 Jun 2021 in Case Notes Written by: Amanda Karras

In a 6-3 opinion the Supreme Court, likening the protection of property rights to the preservation of freedom, held in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid that a California regulation that provided union organizers access to agricultural employers’ property for up to three hours per day, 120 days per year, was a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.  While the case was a loss for the State, looming larger in the case was the question of how the decision...

Posted 17 May 2021 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Today in a unanimous, but narrow opinion, the Supreme Court struck down the First Circuit’s expansion of the exception to the warrant requirement known as the “community care-taking doctrine” from automobiles to the home.  The Court left open the possibility that exigent circumstances might justify a search without a warrant under these circumstances, but that issue was not before the Court in this case. In this case, Kim Caniglia and her husband got in a fight during which he went and...

Posted 25 Mar 2021 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in Torres v. Madrid, the Supreme Court provided a new rule for determining if a seizure occurs under the Fourth Amendment where force is used, but a suspect gets away.  In a 5-3 ruling (Justice Barrett did not take part in the decision), the Court concluded that “[t]he application of physical force to the body of a person with intent to restrain is a seizure, even if the force does not succeed in subduing the person.” In this case, two...

Posted 08 Mar 2021 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

Today, in a 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski that an award of nominal damages on its own can redress a past injury in order to satisfy Article III, making it harder for local governments to dismiss a case based on a changed policy where no compensatory damages are at issue. In this case, Chike Uzuegbunam was a student at Georgia Gwinnett College. In 2016 campus police told him he could not distribute religious literature in an...

Posted 01 Dec 2020 in Case Notes, Commentary Written by: Amanda Karras

The day before Thanksgiving, the Supreme Court issued a per curiam (unsigned) 5-4 opinion enjoining New York from imposing its 10 and 25-person occupancy limits on religious institutions.  Specifically, New York imposed restrictions on attendance at religious services in areas classified as “red” or “orange” zones in the State. In red zones, no more than 10 persons may attend each religious service, and in orange zones, attendance is capped at 25.  Religious entities in the state challenged the order claiming...

Posted 23 Feb 2017 in Case Notes, Commentary
The fate of the most controversial case the Supreme Court has agreed to decide this term is uncertain now that the Department of Education (DOE) has issued a “Dear Colleague” letter withdrawing a previous letter requiring school districts to allow transgender students to use the bathroom consistent with their gender identity. Title IX prohibits school districts that receive federal funds from discriminating “on the basis of sex.” A Title IX regulation states if school districts maintain separate bathrooms (locker rooms, showers, etc.) “on the basis of sex” they must provide comparable facilities for the other sex. In a 2015 letter, DOE interpreted the Title IX regulation to mean that if schools provide for separate boys' and girls’ bathrooms, transgender students must be allowed to use the bathroom consistent with their gender identity. The new “Dear Colleague” letter takes no position on whether the term “sex” in Title IX includes gender identity. G.G. is biologically female but identifies as a male. The Gloucester County School Board prevented him from using the boys' bathroom. He sued the district arguing that it discriminated against him in violation of Title IX.

Posted 15 Feb 2017 in Case Notes, Commentary, IMLA Briefs
The Supreme Court accepts all kinds of cases involving states and local governments. Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates involves a long, complicated story and legal issue. Steven Sherman sued the Town of Chester alleging an unconstitutional taking as the town refused to approve a subdivision on plots of land Sherman intended to sell to Laroe Estates. Laroe Estates advanced Sherman money for the land in exchange for a mortgage on the property. Sherman defaulted on a loan to a senior mortgage holder who foreclosed on the property. Laroe Estates, claiming to be the owner of the property, sought to “intervene” in the takings lawsuit. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure grant the right to intervene to non-parties who “claim an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”  The district court concluded that Laroe Estates lacked Article III “standing” under the U.S. Constitution to assert a takings claim against the Town. Laroe Estates argued that it was a “contract vendee” of the Sherman property. According to the district court, under longstanding circuit court precedent “contract vendees lack standing to assert a takings claim.” The question the Supreme Court will decide in Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates is whether Laroe Estates may intervene in this case even though it lacks standing.