Thursday, June 11, 2015

          Supreme Court Opinions Expected Before End of Term June 30

          The United States Supreme Court will issue opinions on undecided cases from the current term before the end of June. UC Hastings professors are standing by, ready to offer commentary and share their expertise on some of the most important legal issues of our time.

          For media inquiries, please contact Alex AG Shapiro, Director of Communications & Public Affairs, at shapiroa@uchastings.edu or 415-813-9214.

          Additional information about each of the UC Hastings professors listed below is available here. More information about specific cases is available at www.scotusblog.com. Issue descriptions are from SCOTUSBlog.com as well.

          MAJOR CASE: Fair Housing Act
          Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project
          Issue(s): Whether disparate-impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act.
          UCH Professor: Joan C. Williams, Rory Little, Osagie Obasogie

          MAJOR CASE: Affordable Care Act
          King v. Burwell
          Issue(s): Whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
          UCH Professor: Rory Little, David Faigman, Zach Price, Jodi Short, Evan Lee, Jaime King

          MAJOR CASES: Same Sex Marriage
          Obergefell v. Hodges
          Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
          DeBoer v. Snyder
          Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
          Tanco v. Haslam
          Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
          Bourke v. Beshear
          Issue(s): 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state?
          UCH Professor: Rory Little, Zach Price, Scott Dodson, Osagie Obasogie, Joan Williams, Radhika Rao, Joel Paul, Jodi Short

          MAJOR CASE: Death Penalty
          Glossip v. Gross
          Issue(s): (1) Whether it is constitutionally permissible for a state to carry out an execution using a three-drug protocol where (a) there is a well-established scientific consensus that the first drug has no pain relieving properties and cannot reliably produce deep, coma-like unconsciousness, and (b) it is undisputed that there is a substantial, constitutionally unacceptable risk of pain and suffering from the administration of the second and third drugs when a prisoner is conscious; (2) whether the plurality stay standard of Baze v. Rees applies when states are not using a protocol substantially similar to the one that this Court considered in Baze; and (3) whether a prisoner must establish the availability of an alternative drug formula even if the state’s lethal-injection protocol, as properly administered, will violate the Eighth Amendment.
          UCH Professor: Rory Little, Hadar Aviram, Evan Lee

          OTHER CASES STILL UNDECIDED:

          Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises
          Issue(s): Whether this Court should overrule Brulotte v. Thys Co., which held that “a patentee’s use of a royalty agreement that projects beyond the expiration date of the patent is unlawful per se.” CVSG: 10/30/2014.
          UCH Professor: Robin Feldman, Jeff Lefstin, Ben Depoorter

          Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona
          Issue(s): Whether the Town of Gilbert's mere assertion that its sign code lacks a discriminatory motive renders its facially content-based sign code content-neutral and justifies the code's differential treatment of petitioners' religious signs.
          UCH Professor: Zachary Price (First Amendment), Rory Little, Joel Paul

          Kerry v. Din
          Issue(s): (1) Whether a consular officer’s refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen’s alien spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; and (2) whether respondent is entitled to challenge in court the refusal of a visa to her husband and to require the government, in order to sustain the refusal, to identify a specific statutory provision rendering him inadmissible and to allege what it believes he did that would render him ineligible for a visa.
          UCH Professor: Richard Boswell, Karen Musalo, Chimene Keitner

          Ohio v. Clark
          Issue(s): (1) Whether an individual's obligation to report suspected child abuse makes that individual an agent of law enforcement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause; and (2) whether a child's out-of-court statements to a teacher in response to the teacher's concerns about potential child abuse qualify as “testimonial” statements subject to the Confrontation Clause.
          UCH Professor: Evan Lee, David Faigman, Rory Little

          Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission
          Issue(s): (1) Whether the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of a commission to adopt congressional districts; and (2) whether the Arizona Legislature has standing to bring this suit.
          UCH Professor:  Rory Little, Zach Price, Scott Dodson (standing question)

          City of Los Angeles v. Patel
          Issue(s): (1) Whether facial challenges to ordinances and statutes are permitted under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether a hotel has an expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment in a hotel guest registry where the guest-supplied information is mandated by law and an ordinance authorizes the police to inspect the registry, and if so, whether the ordinance is facially unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless it expressly provides for pre-compliance judicial review before the police can inspect the registry.
          UCH Professor:  Rory Little (Criminal procedure)

          Davis v. Ayala
          Issue(s): Whether a state court's rejection of a claim of federal constitutional error on the ground that any error, if one occurred, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt is an “adjudicat[ion] on the merits” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), so that a federal court may set aside the resulting final state conviction only if the defendant can satisfy the restrictive standards imposed by that provision; and (2) whether the court of appeals properly applied the standard articulated in Brecht v. Abrahamson.
          UCH Professor: Scott Dodson, Evan Lee, Rory Little

          Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
          Issue(s): (1) Whether the messages and images that appear on state-issued specialty license plates qualify as government speech immune from any requirement of viewpoint neutrality; and (2) whether Texas engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” by rejecting the license-plate design proposed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, when Texas has not issued any license plate that portrays the confederacy or the confederate battle flag in a negative or critical light.
          UCH Professor: Zach Price (First Amendment freedom of speech question), Rory Little, David Faigman

          Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency
          Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.
          UCH Professor: David Takacs, Dave Owen (Environmental Law questions); Jodi Short, Reuel Schiller (Administrative law questions)

          Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency
          Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.
          National Mining Association v. Environmental Protection Agency
          Issue(s): Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.
          UCH Professor: John Leshy, David Takacs, Dave Owen (Environmental Law questions); Rory Little, Jodi Short

          Brumfield v. Cain
          Issue(s): (1) Whether a state court that considers the evidence presented at a petitioner’s penalty phase proceeding as determinative of the petitioner’s claim of mental retardation under Atkins v. Virginia has based its decision on an unreasonable determination of facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether a state court that denies funding to an indigent petitioner who has no other means of obtaining evidence of his mental retardation has denied petitioner his “opportunity to be heard,” contrary to Atkins and Ford v. Wainwright and his constitutional right to be provided with the “basic tools” for an adequate defense, contrary to Ake v. Oklahoma.
          UCH Professor: Hadar Aviram, Evan Lee (criminal procedure questions); Rory Little (death penalty questions)

          Johnson v. U.S.
          Issue(s): (1) Whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act. (2) Whether the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague.
          UCH Professor: Rory Little, Evan Lee

          McFadden v. U.S.
          Issue(s): Whether, to convict a defendant of distribution of a controlled substance analogue – a substance with a chemical structure that is “substantially similar" to a schedule I or II drug and has a “substantially similar” effect on the user (or is believed or represented by the defendant to have such a similar effect) – the government must prove that the defendant knew that the substance constituted a controlled substance analogue, as held by the Second, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, but rejected by the Fourth and Fifth Circuits.
          UCH Professor: Rory Little, Evan Lee

          Horne v. Department of Agriculture
          Issue(s): (1) Whether the government's “categorical duty” under the Fifth Amendment to pay just compensation when it “physically takes possession of an interest in property,” Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, applies only to real property and not to personal property; (2) whether the government may avoid the categorical duty to pay just compensation for a physical taking of property by reserving to the property owner a contingent interest in a portion of the value of the property, set at the government's discretion; and (3) whether a governmental mandate to relinquish specific, identifiable property as a “condition” on permission to engage in commerce effects a per se taking.
          UCH Professor: David Takacs, Rory Little (takings law), Joan C. Williams, Radhika Rao

          Kingsley v. Hendrickson
          Issue(s): Whether the requirements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim brought by a plaintiff who was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident are satisfied by a showing that the state actor deliberately used force against the pretrial detainee and the use of force was objectively unreasonable.
          UCH Professor: Evan Lee, Rory Little, Zach Price

          Mata v. Lynch
          Issue(s): Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in this case in holding that it has no jurisdiction to review petitioner's request that the Board of Immigration Appeals equitably toll the ninety-day deadline on his motion to reopen as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).
          UCH Professor: Scott Dodson, Karen Musalo, Richard Boswell

          Go to News Archive

          Share this Story

          Share via Facebook
          Share via TwitterShare via EmailPrint Friendly Version

          Other Recent Stories/ RSS

          Friday, July 14, 2017

          Silicon Valley Star: Jonathan Runyan '06 is Helping Startups Succeed

          After representing hundreds of tech firms and venture funds, Runyan decided to join one.
          Friday, July 07, 2017

          When Irish Eyes are Advocating: Rising 3L interns at the Adoption Authority of Ireland

          Gracie Wright assists with inter-country adoptions, researches 'mother and baby home,' and learns to balance the emotional and legal aspects of people searching for their families.
          Thursday, July 06, 2017

          Annual Research Roundup - 2016

          Message from Professor Scott Dodson, Associate Dean for Research, Harry & Lillian Hastings Research Chair
          Wednesday, July 05, 2017

          Thinkers & Doers: June 2017

          Sherlock Holmes Syndrome -- Clara Foltz lounge is the new (temporary) KQED TV studio -- Professor Joan C. Williams on a talk radio tour -- Why Do We Work for Justice? -- Politico says Trump Hearings Launch Kamala Harris -- #SummerOfLaw -- Was alum a potential running mate for President John F. Kennedy? -- and much more
          Tuesday, June 27, 2017

          Message from Dean Faigman: Celebrating Justice on the 4th

          As we head into the Fourth of July weekend, a time when we celebrate the victory of law over tyranny, it is worth contemplating the role of the modern law school.
          Go to News Archive