Supreme Court Decision Syllabus (SCOTUS Podcast)

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address a circuit split -- whether Deborah Laufer has Article III standing to sue hotels that fail to include information about accessibility accommodations as required by the ADA. She sued hundreds of hotels, most of which she never intended on trying to stay at. After her lawyer faced sanctions, Laufer decided to voluntarily dismiss her case/s. She asked the Supreme Court to vacate her case as moot. Justice Barrett, writing for the Court, agreed. The judgment is vacated and remanded to the First Circuit for dismissal. Read by Jake A. Leahy. Acheson Hotels, LLC. v. Laufer.

In Biden v. Nebraska, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the HEROES Act authorized the Secretary of Education to unilaterally forgive $10,000 of student loans for most borrowers. The Court held that the Secretary does not have this power under HEROES Act, despite the language that allows the Secretary to "waive or modify" certain student loan provisions. Read by Jake A. Leahy.

In Department of Education v. Brown, the Supreme Court reviewed whether a person who was expecting student loan forgiveness, but not the maximum amount, had Article III standing to sue. The Court found that those individuals lacked standing to bring their challenge to the student loan forgiveness plan. Read by Jake A. Leahy.

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court considered whether a Colorado based website designer could be compelled to speak in a manner that violates her religious beliefs--that is, whether she could be compelled to create custom website designs for same-sex weddings. The Supreme Court held for the designer, finding that anti-discrimination laws did not prevent her from refusing to create website design services for same-sex weddings. Read by Jeff Barnum.

In Groff v. DeJoy, the Supreme Court reviewed whether a postal worker was entitled to a religious accommodation that would allow him to not be scheduled on Sundays. The Court held that an employer who denies a religious accommodation is required to show a substantial burden if it had decided to accept the request. Read by Jeff Barnum.

In Abitron v. Hetronic, the Supreme Court answered whether certain sections of the Lanham Act were unconstitutionally extraterritorial. To decide this issue, the Court applies a two-part test. It first looks to: 1) whether “Congress has affirmatively and unmistakably instructed for the statute to regulate foreign conduct; and if part-one finds it is not extraterritorial, the analysis turns to 2) whether the statute seeks a (permissible) domestic or (impermissible) foreign application of the statute in question. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, held that the Lanham Act is not extraterritorial, it did not adopt the position that any claim under the Lanham Act could be domestic, wherever it takes place, if there is a likelihood of causing confusion in the United States. Read by Jake A. Leahy.

In Students for Fair Admissions, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and the University of North Carolina are constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Held: The universities' race-based affirmative action admissions programs are unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Read by Jeff Barnum.

Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a State from requiring an out of state corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction in order to do business in the state. Mallory, a Virginia resident, brought suit against Norfolk Southern Railway Company under Pennsylvania Law -- claiming carcinogen exposure in Ohio and Virginia. Norfolk Southern rebutted the suit with a constitutional argument, arguing that the Pennsylvania court lacked personal jurisdiction against the Virginia company. Although Pennsylvania law requires a registered foreign corporation to answer any suit brought against it within the Commonwealth. The Pennsylvania court ruled that the claim was constitutionally precluded, disagreeing with precedent from supreme courts elsewhere. Held: The Due Process Clause allows states to require foreign corporations to consent to suit in exchange for the right to do business in the State. sThis case is controlled by well-established law (Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. of Philadelphia v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co. (1917)) -- the Pennsylvania court incorrectly stated that Pennsylvania Fire had been implicitly overruled. Vacated and remanded. Opinion delivered by Justice Gorsuch. Read by: Jake Leahy

In Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court reviewed whether a conviction for stalking based on "true threats" requires an objective or subjective test. The Court ruled that to government must prove true threats based on a subjective test. Under this test, the Court writes, the speaker need not intend harm, and that recklessness is enough. Justice Kagan writes for the 7-2 majority. Read by Jeff Barnum.

In Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court reviewed whether acts by the state Legislature regarding the regulation of federal elections can be subject to state-level judicial review. Government actions are presumptively subject to judicial review, the Constitution's elections clause does not create a carveout to this expectation. In Moore, the North Carolina General Assembly passed new Congressional maps. The North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the maps due to partisan gerrymandering. Members of the Generaly Assembly sued in federal court, alleging that the North Carolina Supreme Court did not have authority to strike down Congressional maps due to the Elections Clause. Chief Justice Roberts writes for a 6-3 majority. Read by Jeff Barnum.

In United States v. Hansen, the Supreme Court considered whether a statute that forbids purposeful facilitation and facilitation of certain acts in overbroad and unconstitutional. To be over broad, a statute must criminalize such an unreasonable amount of protected speech that it cannot be applied to anyone. Hansen incorrectly promised hundreds of people American citizenship through adult adoption - amassing two million dollars from the hopeful non-citizens. He was charged with a statute that makes it illegal to encourage a non-resident to enter or stay in the United States, while either knowing or with reckless disregard that staying is a violation of the law. Writing for a 7-2 majority, Justice Barrett ruled against Hansen, reasoning that the statute does not fail for overbreadth. Read by Jeff Barnum.

In Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, the Supreme Court reviewed whether a district court must stay proceedings while an interlocutory appeal is pending regarding the arbitrability of the claim is ongoing. Writing for an (in part) 5-4 and (in part) 6-3 majority, Justice Kavanaugh answers in the affirmative, stating that while an interlocutory appeal is pending about whether the case should go to arbitration, the district court must stay proceedings. Read by Jake Leahy.

In United States v. Texas, the Supreme Court reviewed whether Texas and Louisiana have Article III standing to challenge the Biden Administration's new immigration guidelines. Writing for an 8-1 majority, Justice Kavanaugh ruled no, the states do not have standing to challenge the actions. Read by Jeff Barnum.

In Samia v. United States, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the confrontation clause is violated when a confession one of the co-defendants that implicitly implicates one of the other co-defendants violates the confrontation clause. The Court held that it does not. Read by Jake Leahy.

In Pugin v. Garland, the Court reviewed "whether an offense 'relat[es] to obstruction of justice' under §1101(a)(43)(S) even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending. Dictionary definitions, federal laws, state laws, and the Model Penal Code show that the answer is yes: An offense “relat[es] to obstruction of justice” even if the offense does not require that an investigation or proceeding be pending." Jake Leahy, Host.

In Arizona v. Navajo Nation, the Supreme Court answers whether the Navajo Nation has reserved water rights pursuant to the agreement that established the reservation for the Navajo people. Held: While the Navajo Nation has certain water and mineral rights, the United States is not required to take affirmative steps to provide for water rights to the Navajo people. Jeff Barnum, Guest Host.

In Yegiazaryan v. Smagin, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the United States district court has jurisdiction over a Civil RICO claim where the plaintiff is a foreign national (who resides in Russia) who has pleaded an injury based on his "his efforts to execute on a California judgment in California against a California resident were foiled by a pattern of racketeering activity that largely occurred in California and was designed to subvert enforcement of the judgment there. " Held: A plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a domestic injury when the circumstances surrounding the injury took place in the United States. Read by Jake Leahy.

In Jones v. Hendrix, the Supreme Court reviewed whether a prisoner can bring a habeas petition after the Supreme Court retroactively overruled Circuit Court precedent that would have allowed him to previously challenge his conviction. Held: The prisoner cannot circumvent the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, by filing a habeas petition after a change in the law based on the interpretation of a statute. Read by Jake Leahy.

In U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, the Supreme Court reviewed whether, in a qui tam False Claims Act action, the government can move to dismiss the case after not intervening during the so-called "seal" period. Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Kagan writes that the government may move to dismiss the False Claims Act action at anytime - so long as the government had intervened at some point, but regardless of the intervention was during the seal period or after. Read by Jake Leahy.

In Lora v. United States, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the Section 924(c) prohibition on concurrent sentences applies to sentences arising out of different subsections. Justice Jackson, writing for a unanimous Court, writes that it does not, that crimes from other sections are not subject to the ban on concurrent sentences. Guest Host Jeff Barnum.