The October 2022 term of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) comes to a close at the end of June. The rulings impact the daily lives of Americans as they are considered “the law of the land” and binding on all other courts and in all states. To keep our readers well-informed, below are SCOTUS October 2022 term decisions as of May 25, 2023. Check back for further decisions as the term comes to a close. To access the SCOTUS website for more information, please visit https://www.supremecourt.gov.
ISSUE: Whether the government (in this case, a local county government) is in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause when it seizes the entire value of a person’s real property (e.g., a person’s home), including any equity, to satisfy a smaller debt owed (e.g., unpaid property taxes).
RULING: Yes. The government violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment if it seizes the entire value of a property to satisfy a debt of lesser value on account of the government failing to pay the (former) landowner just compensation. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is reversed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-166_q861.pdf
ISSUE: Whether the Clean Water Act (CWA) “extends to wetlands that have no continuous surface connections with ‘waters’ of the United States?” And, whether the lower court properly interpreted the meaning of “waters of the United States,” under the CWA.
RULING: No. The ruling limits the scope of the CWA. “The CWA’s use of ‘waters’ refers only to geographic[al] features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes and to adjacent wetlands that are indistinguishable from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection…[t]o assert jurisdiction over an adjacent wetland under the CWA, a party must establish first, that the adjacent [body of water constitutes] . . . water[s] of the United States (i.e., a relatively permanent body of water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters); and second, that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins.”– The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdf
ISSUE: Whether “a post-trial motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 50 is required to preserve for appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment.”
RULING: No. “A post-trial motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 50 is not required to preserve for appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment.” – The dismissal issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is vacated, and the case remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-210_7mi8.pdf
ISSUE: In an FDIC enforcement action against a former CEO of a Michigan-based community bank accused of “mismanaging one of the bank’s loan relationships in the wake of the ‘Great Recession’ of 2007–2009,” the question presented is whether the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals appropriately resolved a case, in substance, that had come up to the Sixth Circuit following the appeal of a flawed adjudication by an administrative law body when the Sixth Circuit determined the adjudicating body had committed errors.
RULING: No. The Sixth Circuit erred by issuing a decision rather than remanding the case back to the adjudicating body in order for the administrative body to correct its errors. – The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed [per curiam opinion].
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-714_4315.pdf
ISSUE: Whether Amgen’s patents are valid under §112 of the Patent Act. “That provision requires a patent applicant to describe its invention “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the [invention].”
RULING: No. Amgen’s two patents, at issue, are invalid because Amgen “failed ‘to enable any person skilled in the art . . . to make and use the [invention]’.” – The Federal Circuit is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-757_2d8f.pdf
ISSUE: This case involves the “fair use” doctrine as a defense to copyright infringement. There are four “fair use” factors. This case involves only one. The question before the Court was: “[w]hether the first fair use factor, ‘the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,’ §107(1), weighs in favor of AWF’s recent commercial licensing to Condé Nast.”
RULING: No. “The ‘purpose and character’ of AWF’s use of Goldsmith’s photograph in commercially licensing Orange Prince to Condé Nast does not favor AWF’s fair use defense to copyright infringement.” – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf
ISSUE: “Whether the FLRA properly exercised jurisdiction over an unfair labor practices dispute [as governed by] the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (FSLMRS or Statute), [considering] the FLRA only has jurisdiction over labor organizations and federal ‘agencies’.”
RULING: Yes. “The FLRA had jurisdiction over this labor dispute because a State National Guard acts as a federal agency for purposes of the FSLMRS when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their civilian role.” – The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1454_6kgm.pdf
ISSUE: Whether the IRS is required to provide notice to a taxpayer under investigation anytime the IRS issues a summons, including when the IRS serves a summons to a third party during its “collection phase,” i.e., post liability determination of the IRS’ investigative process.
RULING: No. “To safeguard privacy, the IRS is generally required to provide notice to anyone named in a summons, who can then sue to quash it…[this] case concerns an exception to that general rule…When the IRS conducts an investigation for the purpose of ‘determining the liability’ of a taxpayer, §7602(a), it must provide notice, §7609(a)(1). But once the Service has reached the stage of ‘collecting any such liability,’ §7602(a)—which is a distinct activity—notice may not be required, §7609(c)(2)(D).” – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is affirmed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1599_l5gm.pdf
ISSUE: Whether a California law known as Proposition 12 is valid if the law forbids the in-state sale of “whole pork meat that comes from breeding pigs (or their immediate offspring) that are ‘confined in a cruel manner’.”
RULING: Yes, the law is valid. The law, at issue, does not impermissibly burden interstate commerce and, the trial court’s dismissal (affirmed by the Ninth Circuit) due to a finding that the complaint failed to state a claim as a matter of law. – The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed [plurality opinion].
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_c0ne.pdf
ISSUE: Whether the text of the “Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA),” a 2016 law providing “a system for overseeing Puerto Rico’s finances, while also enabling the Commonwealth to gain bankruptcy protections similar to those available under the Federal Bankruptcy Code…makes Congress’s intent to abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity unmistakably clear.”
RULING: No. “Nothing in PROMESA—including its jurisdictional provision, Section 2126(a)—categorically abrogates any sovereign immunity the Board enjoys from legal claims. This Court assumes without deciding that Puerto Rico is immune from suit in United States district court, and that the Board partakes of that immunity.” – The Circuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-96_6j7a.pdf
ISSUE: “[w]hether 11 U. S. C. § 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is jurisdictional—arises in the context of [a] Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Sears, Roebuck and Co…[11 U. S. C. § 363(m)] states that ‘[t]he reversal or modification on appeal of an authorization under [§ 363(b) or § 363(c)] of a sale or lease of property does not affect the validity of a sale or lease under such authorization to an entity that purchased or leased such property in good faith. . .unless such authorization and such sale or lease were stayed pending appeal.”
RULING: No. “Section 363(m) is not a jurisdictional provision.” – The judgment issued by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us1r14_3e04.pdf
ISSUE: Whether “New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact notwithstanding New York’s opposition.”
RULING: Yes. “New Jersey may unilaterally withdraw from the Waterfront Commission Compact notwithstanding New York’s opposition…[u]nlike certain other compacts, the Compact here does not address withdrawal.” – SCOTUS grants New Jersey’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denies New York’s cross-motion.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us1r11_ca7d.pdf
ISSUE: Whether, with respect to these cases (Axon and Cochran) and others that are initially adjudicated by way of an administrative fair hearing, “[t]he statutory review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act and Federal Trade Commission Act do not displace a district court’s federal-question jurisdiction over claims challenging as unconstitutional the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC.
RULING: No. Categories of cases that are initially adjudicated by way of administrative law hearings will, instead, fall under the district court’s jurisdiction provided the federal-question challenges as unconstitutional, the structure or existence of the SEC or FTC – The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed and remanded; the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us1r10_febh.pdf
ISSUE: Whether landowners who bring suit against the government to Quiet Title based on dueling interpretations of an easement held in favor of the government are time-barred by 28 U. S. C. § 2409a(g) which permits the landowner to bring suit within 12 years from the date the landowner knows or should know that his land is encumbered.
RULING: No. Filing deadlines will not divest a court of jurisdiction. In this case SCOUTS concludes that the 12-year time frame set forth in the statute is for timeliness purposes only and does not impact whether a court retains jurisdiction over the dispute and parties, stating, “28 U. S. C. § 2409a(g) “is a non-jurisdictional claims-processing rule” and thus the time constraint set forth in the statute is not a statute of limitation barring suit. – The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us1r9_8mjp.pdf
ISSUE: Assuming the matter is governed by both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),whether a litigant must exhaust all administrative rights under the IDEA prior to initiating litigation under the ADA if the relief sought in the ADA lawsuit is not available under the IDEA.
RULING: No. A litigant is not required to exhaust all administrative rights before bringing a suit under the ADA as long as the type of relief sought in the ADA lawsuit is not the same type of relief that is available under the IDEA. On the other hand, “[the] IDEA’s exhaustion requirement does not preclude an ADA lawsuit if the relief [sought] (i. e., compensatory damages) is not something IDEA can provide.” – The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed and remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us1r8_limq.pdf
ISSUE: Whether Plaintiff’s allegations that the social media company defendants aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack at a nightclub in Istanbul, Turkey are sufficient to state a claim suitable for litigation under 18 USC § 2333(d)(2) which “imposes civil liability on ‘any person
who aids and abets, by knowingly providing substantial assistance, or who conspires with the person who committed such an act of international terrorism’.”
RULING: No. “Plaintiffs’ allegations are insufficient to establish that these defendants aided and abetted ISIS in carrying out the relevant attack.” – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf
NOTE: Today, the SCOTUS remanded Gonzalez v Google (21-1333) back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals “for reconsideration in light of the Court’s decision in Twitter v Taamneh (21-149).” America’s Future submitted an Amicus Brief in Gonzalez. Read more about our Amicus brief here.
ISSUE: Whether the statute of limitations on a §1983 denial of due process claim begins to run at the end of a criminal trial or after appeals are exhausted.
RULING: It depends. When a prisoner pursues state post-conviction DNA testing through the state-provided litigation process, the statute of limitations for a § 1983 procedural due process claim begins to run when the state litigation ends, in this case when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied Reed’s motion for rehearing.” According to SCOTUS, the statute begins to run when the “state’s alleged failure to provide a fundamentally fair process is complete.” – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/598us1r12_6579.pdf
ISSUE: “Whether a private citizen with influence over government decision-making can be convicted for wire fraud on the theory that he or she deprived the public of its ‘intangible right of honest services [under 18 U. S. C. §§1343, 1346]’.”
RULING: Generally no, but no bright-line rule in this case. Although reversed on different grounds, SCOTUS, in dicta, reveals, “We reject the argument that a person nominally outside public employment can never have the necessary fiduciary duty to the public…however…’[t]he intangible right of honest services’ codified in §1346 plainly does not extend a duty to the public to all private persons.” – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1158_p8k0.pdf
NOTE: America’s Future published an article related to Percoco on November 10, 2022. You can read it here.
ISSUE: “Whether the Second Circuit’s longstanding ‘right to control’ theory of fraud describes a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute, which criminalizes the use of interstate wires for ‘any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.’ 18 U. S. C. §1343.” SCOTUS notes “[u]nder the right-to-control theory, a defendant is guilty of wire fraud if he schemes to deprive the victim of ‘potentially valuable economic information’ ‘necessary to make discretionary economic decisions’.”
RULING: No. “The federal fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests. Because ‘potentially valuable economic information’ ‘necessary to make discretionary economic decisions’ is not a traditional property interest, we now hold that the right-to-control theory is not a valid basis for liability under §1343.” – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1170_b97d.pdf
ISSUE: Whether, “under 8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1), a noncitizen who seeks to challenge an [Administrative adjudicatory] order of removal in court must first exhaust certain administrative remedies [8 U. S. C. §1252(d)(1) provides: ‘A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right’].”
RULING: No. SCOTUS indicates the statutory provision under review in this case “lacks the clear statement necessary to qualify as jurisdictional.” Further, statutory provisions that are jurisdictional can have harsh consequences and, therefore, courts should treat statutes or provisions as jurisdictional only if “Congress clearly states that it is.” This is because the question of jurisdiction can divest a court of authority over a case which can be a harsh consequence.
Here, SCOTUS determined that 8 U.S.C.§1252(d)(1) is not jurisdictional, and therefore “a noncitizen need not request discretionary forms of administrative review, like reconsideration [of an unfavorable Administrative Fair Hearing Appeals determination, in order to seek court intervention].” – The Dismissal issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is vacated, in part, and the case is remanded.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1436_n6io.pdf
ISSUE: Whether entitlement to certain Veterans Affairs disability benefits is subject to equitable tolling permitting an untimely application or appeal for such benefits to be reviewed and adjudicated on the merits of the application or appeal.
RULING: No. Entitlement to certain Veterans Affairs disability benefits “is not subject to equitable tolling. Equitable tolling ‘effectively extends an otherwise discrete limitations period set by Congress’ when a litigant diligently pursues his rights but extraordinary circumstances prevent him from bringing a timely action.” – Affirmed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-432_f2bh.pdf
ISSUE: Not Applicaable
RULING: Dismissed as improvidently granted.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1397_ap6b.pdf
ISSUE: Whether the highest courts in states may dismiss an appeal involving a criminal defendant’s constitutionally protected post-conviction relief claim(s) based on a novel and unforeseeable application of binding precedence interpreting a state court procedural rule.
RULING: No. A holding out of the highest court in any state that is based on a novel and unforeseeable application of precedence and interpretation of state procedural law is not adequate to foreclose review of the constitutional claim – Vacated the Ariz Supreme Court dismissal and remanded to the same court for further proceedings.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-846_lkgn.pdf
ISSUE: Whether a “daily-rate worker,” of whatever income level, qualifies as a salaried employee and therefore exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA’s) overtime pay guarantee.
RULING: Generally, no. “Daily-rate workers, of whatever income level, qualify as paid on a salary basis only if [certain] conditions [set out in §541.604(b)] are met.” – Affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-984_j426.pdf
ISSUE: Whether the Bankruptcy Code “precludes discharging, in bankruptcy, a debt obtained by fraud, regardless [of the debtor’s] own culpability.”
RULING: No. “Section 523(a)(2)(A) [of the Bankruptcy Code] precludes discharging, in bankruptcy, a debt obtained by fraud, regardless [of the debtor’s] own culpability” – Affirmed The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-908_n6io.pdf
ISSUE: Whether the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) “$10,000 maximum penalty for the nonwillful failure to file a compliant report accrues on a per-account, basis.”
RULING: No. “The BSA’s $10,000 maximum penalty for the nonwillful failure to file a compliant report accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis” – Reversed the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and remanded back to the lower court for further proceedings.
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1195_h3ci.pdf
ISSUE: Whether “Agent Checks” and Teller’s Checks (collectively, “Disputed Instruments”) are sufficiently “similar” to a money and therefore can be escheated by states under the Federal Disposition Act (FDA).
RULING: Yes. “The Disputed Instruments are sufficiently ‘similar’ to a money order to fall within the FDA” – In this case, the SCOTUS directed, as follows: “Exceptions to Special Master’s First Interim Report overruled; First Interim Report and order adopted to the extent consistent with this opinion; and cases remanded.”
LINK TO OPINION: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/145orig_kjfl.pdf
AMERICA’S FUTURE, INC. IS A FLORIDA NON PROFIT 501(C)(3) TAX-EXEMPT EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION. ALL DONATIONS ARE TAX DEDUCTIBLE TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW. A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING TOLL-FREE, WITHIN THE STATE, 1-800-435-7352, OR VISITING WWW.FLORIDACONSUMERHELP.COM. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE. AMERICA’S FUTURE, INC.’S REGISTRATION NUMBER IS CH67839.
© 2023 AMERICA’S FUTURE, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS AND CONDITIONS
