The Sidebar: Supreme Court of the United States

The case NVIDIA v. Öhman, concerning the sufficiency of pleadings under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). The core dispute centers on the level of detail required in complaints alleging corporate fraud, specifically regarding the use of expert reports and the necessity of disclosing the contents of internal documents. The justices debated the appropriate balance between preventing frivolous lawsuits and allowing meritorious claims to proceed, questioning whether the Ninth Circuit's standard was too lenient. Arguments focused on the interpretation of "particularity" under the PSLRA and whether a "bright-line rule" should be established. The justices also grappled with the role of circumstantial versus direct evidence in establishing scienter.

The case Salvatore Delligatti v. United States. The case centers on the interpretation of the "Elements Clause" within the Armed Career Criminal Act, specifically whether the clause applies to crimes of omission (failing to act) as well as acts of commission. The petitioner argues that the clause only covers affirmative actions involving violent physical force, while the respondent contends that it includes omissions resulting in harm when a legal duty exists. The justices explore various hypotheticals to determine the scope of "use of physical force," debating whether omissions constitute "use" and whether the statute should be interpreted to include all murders. The central question is whether the petitioner's conviction for hiring a murderer qualifies as a "crime of violence" under the Act's Elements Clause.

The Supreme Court case Velazquez v. Garland. The central issue is the interpretation of a 60-day deadline for voluntary departure in immigration law, specifically whether this deadline should be extended if it falls on a weekend or holiday. The petitioner argues for an extension based on established legal principles and regulations, while the respondent contends the deadline is inflexible. A significant portion of the argument also focuses on the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to hear the case, with the respondent arguing it lacks jurisdiction because the issue does not directly impact the final order of removal. The justices extensively questioned both sides on both the merits and the jurisdictional issues.

The case Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank. The case centers on whether risk disclosures in financial statements are misleading by omission if they don't mention past occurrences of the described risk. The petitioners argue that such omissions are only misleading if they create an implied representation about the past, while the respondents contend that omissions can be misleading even without explicit misrepresentation, depending on context and materiality. The justices extensively questioned both sides, exploring various hypotheticals to clarify the boundaries of securities liability for omissions in risk disclosures. The debate ultimately hinges on the interpretation of reasonable investor expectations and the interplay between materiality and falsity in securities law.

The case E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. v. Faustino Sanchez Carrera, et al. The central issue concerns the appropriate standard of proof—preponderance of the evidence versus clear and convincing evidence—for determining whether employees fall under an exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime requirements. The Petitioners argue for the default preponderance standard, while the Respondents advocate for a heightened standard, citing the importance of FLSA protections and the potential for employer manipulation of evidence. The Justices' questions explore the implications of various standards and the Court's precedents regarding proof standards in similar cases. The arguments address whether the public interest warrants a departure from the typical preponderance standard and the implications for both employers and employees.

The case Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra. The case concerns the interpretation of the phrase "entitled to benefits" within the Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) adjustment formula, specifically regarding Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The petitioners argue that "entitled to benefits" should refer to program eligibility, not just monthly cash payments, while the respondent contends that it refers only to those receiving a monthly cash payment. The justices extensively questioned both sides regarding the nature of SSI benefits and the implications for hospital reimbursements. The core dispute hinges on whether SSI functions as a broader income-assurance program or solely a monthly cash-payment system.

This Supreme Court oral argument  concerns the application of the False Claims Act (FCA) to the E-rate program, which funds telecommunications services for schools and libraries. The petitioner argues the FCA doesn't apply because the government doesn't directly provide the funds, instead using a private administrator and requiring private carriers to contribute. The respondent counters that the government’s control over the program, including its mandate on contributions and disbursement, constitutes providing the funds, regardless of the intermediary. The justices extensively question both sides regarding the definition of "provides" under the FCA and the implications for damages calculations. A key point of contention centers on whether the government's involvement in collecting and returning $100 million in debts and settlements constitutes providing funds under the FCA.

The case of San Francisco v. EPA.  The case centers on the EPA's use of "generic prohibitions" in discharge permits, which San Francisco argues are vague and fail to provide adequate notice of discharge limitations. The dispute hinges on the interpretation of Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act, focusing on whether it allows limitations beyond specific effluent restrictions. The EPA contends these prohibitions are necessary when sufficient information for more precise limitations is unavailable, while San Francisco maintains they violate the Act's requirement for clear discharge limitations. The justices explore various aspects of the Clean Water Act, the permit process, and the practical implications of different interpretations.

The case Bufkin v. McDonough. The central issue concerns the standard of review for the Veterans Court's assessment of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of the "benefit-of-the-doubt" rule. Petitioners argue for a less deferential review, emphasizing the statute's intent to ensure meaningful scrutiny of the agency's decisions. The respondent defends the current deferential standard, asserting that the statute clarifies, rather than changes, existing practice. The justices' questioning explores the nuances of legal versus factual determinations within the benefit-of-the-doubt analysis and the practical implications of different standards of review.

The case Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. The central issue is whether the revocation of an immigration petition, following a determination of sham marriage, is subject to judicial review. The petitioner argues that the revocation is mandatory and thus reviewable, citing statutory language and the government’s consistent practice. The respondent, the government, contends that the statute grants discretionary authority to revoke, precluding review, regardless of established practice. The justices explore the interplay of different statutory provisions and the implications for various immigration contexts. Disagreement centers on whether the statutory language regarding initial petition approval extends to subsequent revocations.

The case of Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn. The central question is whether economic losses stemming from personal injuries are recoverable under RICO. The petitioner argues that RICO excludes such claims, emphasizing the distinction between "injury" (invasion of a legal right) and "damages" (monetary losses resulting from injury). The respondent counters that loss of income due to a job loss resulting from a product defect constitutes an "injury to business or property" under RICO, regardless of any underlying personal injury. The justices extensively question both sides, exploring the definitions of "injury," "damages," and "proximate cause" within the context of RICO and related statutes. Ultimately, the Court must determine the proper scope of RICO's application to cases involving both personal and economic harm.

The case of Glossip v. State of Oklahoma, focusing on whether the state court's denial of the petitioner's request to waive procedural bars to his habeas corpus claim constitutes an adequate and independent state ground for review. The central issue revolves around alleged Brady and Napue violations, specifically the prosecution's suppression of evidence regarding a key witness's psychiatric treatment and altered testimony. The justices extensively discuss the state court's reasoning and whether its decision was adequately supported, considering the conflicting accounts of the prosecutors involved. Debate centers on the materiality of the suppressed evidence and whether its disclosure would likely have changed the trial's outcome. Finally, the court considers whether the Attorney General's confession of error necessitates a new trial.

The case of Lackey v. Stinnie, heard on October 8, 2024. The central question concerns whether a preliminary injunction constitutes a "prevailing party" status under Section 1988, allowing for attorney's fee awards. The petitioner argues that a preliminary injunction, being a temporary measure not deciding the case's merits, does not qualify. The respondent counters that obtaining the preliminary injunction's tangible relief and subsequent legislative action constitute prevailing. The justices extensively debate the meaning of "prevailing party" and the implications of granting fees based solely on a preliminary injunction.

The case Garland v. VanDerStok, concerning the legality of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule regulating firearm parts kits and partially complete receivers. The Solicitor General argued the rule is consistent with existing law and addresses a serious public safety issue, while the respondents contended the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by expanding the definition of "firearm." The justices questioned both sides extensively on the definitions of key terms within the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the appropriate standard of review for the rule. The core dispute centers on whether the ATF's interpretation of "readily convertible" is a permissible expansion of the law or an impermissible overreach.

The case Royal Canin v. Wullschleger. The core issue revolves around whether a federal court retains supplemental jurisdiction after a plaintiff amends their complaint to remove all federal claims, particularly in cases initially brought in state court and then removed. Petitioners argue established precedent and Section 1367 support retaining jurisdiction, emphasizing the defendant's right to removal. Respondents contend the amended complaint should control, aligning with a principle that the operative pleading determines jurisdiction. The justices' questions explore the nuances of Section 1367, precedent (including Cohill and Rockwell), and the implications for various jurisdictional doctrines.

The case Williams v. Fitzgerald. The central issue is whether an Alabama state law requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before bringing a §1983 due process claim is preempted by federal law. The petitioner argues that the state's exhaustion requirement creates an insurmountable barrier to accessing federal courts, effectively granting the state immunity. The respondent contends that the state law is a neutral rule of judicial administration and does not conflict with §1983. The justices extensively questioned both sides regarding the nature of the state rule, the availability of alternative remedies, and the implications for preemption doctrine.