Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved California regulations under the Clean Air Act that require automakers to produce more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles to reduce emissions. Several fuel producers, including those of gasoline and ethanol, sued the EPA, arguing that the EPA lacked the authority to approve these regulations as they target global climate change rather than local air quality issues. The fuel producers claimed that the regulations would significantly reduce the demand for liquid fuels, causing them monetary injury.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case and held that the fuel producers lacked Article III standing. The court found that the fuel producers failed to demonstrate that automakers would likely respond to the invalidation of the regulations by producing fewer electric vehicles and more gasoline-powered vehicles, thus failing to establish redressability.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge the EPA’s approval of the California regulations. The Court found that the fuel producers demonstrated injury in fact, causation, and redressability. The Court reasoned that the regulations likely cause monetary injury to the fuel producers by reducing the demand for gasoline and other liquid fuels. The Court also found that invalidating the regulations would likely redress the injury by increasing the sales of gasoline-powered vehicles and, consequently, the demand for liquid fuels. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

McKesson Corporation sent unsolicited fax advertisements to medical practices, including McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, in 2009 and 2010. McLaughlin sued McKesson in 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) for sending unsolicited faxes without the required opt-out notices. McLaughlin sought damages and an injunction and aimed to represent a class of fax recipients who received the advertisements on traditional fax machines or through online fax services. The District Court certified the class without distinguishing between the two methods of receipt.During the lawsuit, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued the Amerifactors order, which interpreted "telephone facsimile machine" in the TCPA to exclude online fax services. The District Court, following Ninth Circuit precedent, deemed the Amerifactors order binding and granted summary judgment to McKesson for claims involving online fax services. The court then decertified the class, leaving McLaughlin with claims for only 12 faxes received on a traditional machine and damages of $6,000. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a statute. District courts must independently determine the law’s meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp." on Justia Law

In this case, inmate Kyle Richards alleged that Thomas Perttu, a prison employee, sexually harassed him and other inmates. Richards also claimed that Perttu destroyed his grievance documents and retaliated against him for attempting to file them. Richards sued Perttu under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for violating his constitutional rights, including his First Amendment right to file grievances. Perttu moved for summary judgment, arguing that Richards had failed to exhaust available grievance procedures as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA).The Magistrate Judge found a genuine issue of fact regarding whether Richards was excused from exhausting his claims due to Perttu's interference and held an evidentiary hearing. The Magistrate Judge concluded that Richards's witnesses lacked credibility and recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust. The District Court adopted this recommendation. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the Seventh Amendment requires a jury trial when the resolution of the exhaustion issue under the PLRA would also resolve a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the merits of the plaintiff's substantive case.The Supreme Court of the United States held that parties are entitled to a jury trial on PLRA exhaustion when that issue is intertwined with the merits of a claim that requires a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Court reasoned that the usual practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that factual disputes regarding legal claims go to the jury. The PLRA is silent on whether judges or juries should resolve exhaustion disputes, and this silence indicates that the usual practice should be followed. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit. View "Perttu v. Richards" on Justia Law

The case involves the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) disapproval of state emissions-control plans submitted by Oklahoma and Utah. The EPA disapproved these plans, asserting that they did not comply with the Clean Air Act's (CAA) "Good Neighbor" provision, which requires states to prevent their emissions from significantly contributing to air quality problems in other states. The EPA aggregated its disapprovals into a single rule and claimed that the rule was nationally applicable, or alternatively, that it was based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.The states and energy-industry petitioners challenged the EPA's disapprovals in regional Circuits. The EPA moved to dismiss these challenges or transfer them to the D.C. Circuit. Four out of five Circuits found that regional Circuit review was proper. However, the Tenth Circuit disagreed and transferred the challenges to the D.C. Circuit, reasoning that the EPA's omnibus rule constituted a single, nationally applicable action.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the Tenth Circuit's decision. The Court held that the EPA's disapprovals of the Oklahoma and Utah SIPs are locally or regionally applicable actions, not nationally applicable. The Court further held that the "nationwide scope or effect" exception did not apply because the EPA's disapprovals were based on state-specific, fact-intensive analyses rather than on determinations of nationwide scope or effect. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision and remanded the cases for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency" on Justia Law

In October 2017, the FBI mistakenly raided the home of Hilliard Toi Cliatt, Curtrina Martin, and her 7-year-old son in suburban Atlanta, instead of the intended gang hideout. The error occurred due to Special Agent Guerra's reliance on a personal GPS device and the team's failure to notice the correct street sign and house number. The raid resulted in personal injuries and property damage. The plaintiffs sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the officers' negligent and intentional actions.The district court granted summary judgment to the government, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Eleventh Circuit applied a unique approach to FTCA claims, holding that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides all exceptions, including the discretionary-function exception, allowing intentional-tort claims to proceed without further analysis. The court also allowed the government to assert a Supremacy Clause defense, which it found valid, leading to summary judgment for the United States.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) overrides only the intentional-tort exception, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions in §2680. The Court also held that the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in FTCA suits. The case was vacated and remanded to the Eleventh Circuit to reconsider whether the discretionary-function exception bars the plaintiffs' claims and to assess liability under Georgia state law without reference to a Supremacy Clause defense. View "Martin v. United States" on Justia Law

Donte Parrish, a federal inmate, was placed in restrictive segregated confinement for 23 months due to his suspected involvement in another inmate's death. After being cleared of wrongdoing by a hearing officer, Parrish filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court seeking damages for his confinement. The District Court dismissed his case on March 23, 2020, citing some claims as untimely and others as unexhausted. Parrish, who had been transferred to a different facility, received the dismissal order three months later and promptly filed a notice of appeal, explaining the delay.The Fourth Circuit recognized that Parrish's notice of appeal was filed after the 60-day appeal period for suits against the United States. The court construed his filing as a motion to reopen the time to appeal under 28 U.S.C. §2107(c). On remand, the District Court granted a 14-day reopening period, but Parrish did not file a second notice of appeal. Both Parrish and the United States argued that the original notice was sufficient, but the Fourth Circuit held that Parrish's failure to file a new notice within the reopened period deprived the court of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening does not need to file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted. The Court reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision, allowing Parrish's appeal to proceed. View "Parrish v. United States" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, victims and families of victims of terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas between 2001 and 2003, sued BLOM Bank SAL under the Anti-Terrorism Act, alleging that the bank aided and abetted the attacks by providing financial services to Hamas-affiliated customers. BLOM argued that the complaint failed to state a claim, and plaintiffs affirmed they would not seek to amend their complaint if dismissed. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs had not adequately alleged BLOM's general awareness for aiding-and-abetting liability and denied leave to amend due to plaintiffs' refusal to amend earlier.The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal, noting that the District Court applied too stringent a standard for general awareness but concluded that plaintiffs' claims still failed under the correct standard. Plaintiffs then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to vacate the final judgment to file an amended complaint. The District Court denied the motion, ruling that the Second Circuit’s clarification did not constitute "extraordinary circumstances" required for Rule 60(b)(6) relief and that plaintiffs' prior choices not to amend counseled against relief. The Second Circuit reversed, holding that district courts must balance Rule 60(b)’s finality principles with Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment policy.The Supreme Court of the United States held that relief under Rule 60(b)(6) requires extraordinary circumstances, and this standard does not become less demanding when the movant seeks to reopen a case to amend a complaint. A party must first satisfy Rule 60(b) before Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard can apply. The Court reversed the Second Circuit’s decision, emphasizing that the District Court correctly applied the Rule 60(b)(6) standard and provided substantial justification for its conclusion. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman" on Justia Law

The President invoked the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to remove Venezuelan nationals identified as members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA), a designated foreign terrorist organization. Two detainees, along with a putative class of similarly situated detainees in the Northern District of Texas, sought injunctive relief against their summary removal under the AEA. The detainees were being held in U.S. detention facilities and were notified of their imminent removal.The District Court denied the detainees' motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against their removal. The detainees then moved for an emergency TRO, which was not promptly addressed by the District Court. Consequently, they appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which dismissed their appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied their motion for an injunction pending appeal, citing insufficient time given to the district court to act. The detainees also applied to the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and found that the Fifth Circuit erred in dismissing the detainees' appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the District Court's inaction had the practical effect of refusing an injunction, given the extreme urgency and high risk of irreparable harm faced by the detainees. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fifth Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court emphasized that due process requires adequate notice and time for detainees to seek habeas relief before removal. The Government was enjoined from removing the detainees under the AEA pending further proceedings and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari. View "A.A.R.P. v. Trump" on Justia Law

Monsalvo Velázquez, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. unlawfully and has lived in Colorado for about 20 years. The federal government initiated removal proceedings against him in 2011. He requested either suspension of removal due to potential persecution in Mexico or permission to leave voluntarily. An immigration judge found him removable but granted him 60 days to depart voluntarily. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upheld the removal order and granted a new 60-day voluntary departure period, which ended on a Saturday. Monsalvo filed a motion to reopen on the following Monday, but the BIA rejected it as untimely, stating the deadline expired on Saturday.The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the BIA, holding that the 60-day voluntary departure period in 8 U.S.C. §1229c(b)(2) refers to calendar days, with no extension for weekends or holidays. Monsalvo then petitioned for review by the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case and held that it has jurisdiction to review Monsalvo’s petition under §1252, which allows for judicial review of final orders of removal and all questions of law arising from them. The Court determined that the term “60 days” in §1229c(b)(2) should be interpreted to extend deadlines falling on weekends or legal holidays to the next business day, aligning with longstanding administrative practices and other similar statutory deadlines.The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation. View "Velazquez v. Bondi" on Justia Law

The case involves the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), a group designated as a foreign terrorist organization by the State Department. The President issued a proclamation under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to detain and remove these individuals. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against their removal under the Proclamation, initially seeking relief in habeas but later dismissing those claims.The District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing the removal of the named plaintiffs and a provisionally certified class of noncitizens subject to the Proclamation. The court extended the TROs for an additional 14 days. The D.C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders, leading the Government to seek vacatur from the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the United States construed the TROs as appealable injunctions and granted the Government's application to vacate the orders. The Court held that challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought in habeas corpus, as the claims necessarily imply the invalidity of the detainees' confinement and removal. The Court also determined that venue for such habeas petitions lies in the district of confinement, which in this case is Texas, making the District of Columbia an improper venue. The detainees are entitled to notice and an opportunity to seek habeas relief in the proper venue before removal. The application to vacate the District Court's orders was granted, and the TROs were vacated. View "Trump v. J. G. G." on Justia Law