Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This case concerned the extent of the protection, if any, that the Petition Clause granted public employees in routine disputes with government employers where petitioner filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 suit after respondent's termination of petitioner as police chief and where petitioner was subsequently reinstated, with directives instructing petitioner in the performance of his duties. Petitioner alleged that the directives were issued in retaliation for the filing of his first grievance and violated his First Amendment right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." At issue was whether the public concern test applied when the employee invoked the Petition Clause. The Court held that a government employer's allegedly retaliatory actions against an employee did not give rise to liability under the Petition Clause unless the employee's petition related to a matter of public concern. Therefore, the Court held that the Third Circuit's conclusion that the public concern test did not limit public employees' Petition Clause claims was incorrect. Accordingly, the Court concluded that, absent full briefs by the parties, the Court need not consider how the foregoing framework would apply to this case and therefore, vacated the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Borough of Duryea, et al. v. Guarnieri" on Justia Law

Petitioner was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. 229, which forbid knowing possession or use, for nonpeaceful purposes, of a chemical that "can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans," and which was part of a federal act implementing a chemical weapons treaty ratified by the United States. At issue was whether a person indicted for violating a federal statute had standing to challenge its validity on grounds that, by enacting it, Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution, thus intruding upon the sovereignty and authority of the States. The Court held that petitioner had standing to challenge the federal statute where there was no basis in precedent or principle to deny petitioner's standing to raise her claims. The ultimate issue of the statute's validity turned in part on whether the law could be deemed "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" the President's Article II, section 2 Treaty Power. Accordingly, the Court expressed no view on the merits of the argument and noted that it could be addressed by the Court of Appeals on remand. Therefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Bond v. United States" on Justia Law

While conducting a routine vehicle stop, police arrested petitioner, a passenger of the vehicle, for giving a false name. After handcuffing him and securing the scene, the police searched the vehicle and found petitioner's revolver. Petitioner was subsequently indicted on charges of being a felon in possession of a firearm. In a suppression motion, petitioner acknowledged that the search of the vehicle complied with existing Eleventh Circuit precedent interpreting New York v. Belton, but he raised a Fourth Amendment challenge to preserve the issue on appeal. The District Court denied the motion and petitioner was convicted. While his appeal was pending, the Court announced, in Arizona v. Gant, a new rule governing automobile searches incident to arrests of recent occupants. At issue was whether to apply the exclusionary rule when the police conducted a search in compliance with binding precedent that was later overruled. Because the suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circumstances, and because it would come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety, the Court held that the searches conducted in objectionable reliance on binding appellate precedent were not subject to the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the suppression of the revolver and petitioner's conviction. View "Davis v. United States" on Justia Law

J.D.B., a thirteen-year-old seventh-grade student, was taken from his classroom to a closed-door conference room where uniformed police and school administrators questioned him for at least 30 minutes regarding two home break-ins nearby. Before beginning, they did not give J.D.B. Miranda warnings, the opportunity to call his legal guardian, or tell him he was free to leave the room. After J.D.B. subsequently confessed to the break-ins and wrote a statement at the request of police, two juvenile petitions were filed against him. J.D.B.'s public defender moved to suppress his statements and the evidence derived therefrom, arguing that he had been interrogated in a custodial setting without being afforded Miranda warnings and that his statements were involuntary. At issue was whether the age of a child subjected to police questioning was relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona. The Court held that it was beyond dispute that children would often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave. Seeing no reason for police officers or courts to blind themselves to that commonsense reality, the Court held that a child's age group properly informed the Miranda custody analysis. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded to the state courts to address whether J.D.B. was in custody when he was interrogated, taking account of all of the relevant circumstances of the interrogation, including his age at the time. View "J. D. B. v. North Carolina" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of, inter alia, smuggling unauthorized aliens into the United States. The District Court imposed a 51 month prison sentence, reasoning that petitioner should serve that long in order to qualify for and complete the Bureau of Prisons' Residential Drug Abuse Program ("RDAP"). At issue was whether the Sentencing Reform Act ("SRA"), 18 U.S.C. 3582(a), precluded federal courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term in order to promote a criminal defendant's rehabilitation. The Court held that the text, context, and history of section 3582(a) precluded sentencing courts from imposing or lengthening a prison term to promote an offender's rehabilitation. The Court also held that Amicus' attempts to recast what the SRA said about rehabilitation were unavailing. The court further held that the record indicated that the District Court may have increased the length of petitioner's sentence to ensure her completion of RDAP, something a court could not do. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings and held that the Ninth Circuit was left to consider on remand the effect of petitioner's failure to object to the sentence when imposed. View "Tapia v. United States" on Justia Law

Petitioner administered and enforced Nevada's Ethics in Government Law, Nev. Rev. Stat. 281A.420, and investigated respondent, an elected official who voted to approve a hotel/casino project proposed by a company that used respondent's long-time friend and campaign manager as a paid consultant. Petitioner concluded that respondent had a disqualifying conflict of interest under section 281A.420(8)(e)'s catch-all provision and censured him for failing to abstain from voting on the project. At issue was whether legislators have a personal, First Amendment right to vote on any given matter. The Court held that the Nevada Ethics in Government Law was not unconstitutionally overbroad where the law prohibited a legislator who had a conflict both from voting on a proposal and from advocating its passage or failure; where a universal and long-established tradition of prohibiting certain conduct created a strong presumption that the prohibition was constitutional; and where restrictions on legislators' voting were not restrictions on legislators' protected speech because the legislator's vote was the commitment of his apportioned share of the legislature's power to the passage or defeat of a particular proposal and the legislative power thus committed was not personal to the legislator but belonged to the people. The Court also concluded that additional arguments raised in respondent's brief were not decided or raised in his brief in opposition and were thus considered waived. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted for distribution of 50 grams or more of cocaine base under section 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 ("ADAA"), 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)(iii), and sentenced to the 120 months prison term mandated by the statute. At issue was whether the term "cocaine base" as used in the statute referred generally to cocaine in its chemically basic form or exclusively to what was colloquially known as "crack cocaine." The court held that "cocaine base," as used in section 841(b)(1), meant not just "crack cocaine," but cocaine in its chemically basic form where, at the time the statute was enacted, "cocaine" was commonly used to refer to powder cocaine, and the scientific and medical literature often used "cocaine" to refer to all cocaine-related substances, including ones that were not chemically basic; where Congress had good reason to include the term "cocaine" in clause (ii), and the slight inconsistency created by its use of "cocaine base" in clause (iii) was insufficient reason to adopt petitioner's interpretation of the statute; and where petitioner's additional arguments were unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the First Circuit adhering to its precedent holding that "cocaine base" referred to all forms of cocaine. View "DePierre v. United States" on Justia Law

When petitioner pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, he had prior convictions for at least three felonies, including the state-law crime of "using a vehicle" to "knowingly or intentionally" "flee from a law enforcement officer" after being ordered to stop pursuant to Ind. Code 35-44-3-3(b)(1)(A). The Federal District Court decided that the prior convictions subjected petitioner to the 15-year mandatory minimum prison term that the Armed Career Criminal Act ("ACCT"), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), provided for an armed defendant who had three prior "violent felony" convictions. Rejecting petitioner's argument that his vehicle flight felony was not "violent" under the ACCA, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court held that felony vehicle flight, as proscribed by Indiana law, was a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA where felony vehicle flight presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to another; where, because felony vehicle flight was not a strict-liability, negligence, or recklessness crime and was, as a categorical matter, similar in risk to the crimes listed in the residual clause, it was a violent felony; where Indiana treated subsection 35-44-3-3(b)(1)(A) and 35-44-3-3(b)(1)(B) as felonies of the same magnitude carrying similar prison terms; and where Congress had power to enact the residual clause to impose enhanced punishment for unlawful firearm possession when the relevant prior offenses involved a potential risk of physical injury similar to that presented by several enumerated offenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the Seventh Circuit. View "Sykes v. United States" on Justia Law

Claiming that he was subjected to dirty tricks during his successful campaign to become the police chief of Vinton, La., plaintiff filed a state court suit against the incumbent chief and the town (collectively, "defendant") asserting both state and federal law claims. Defendant removed the case to federal court based on plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims and after discovery, defendant sought summary judgment on the federal claims, which plaintiff conceded were not valid. The District Court accordingly dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and remanded the remaining claims to state court, noting that defendant's attorneys' work could be useful in the state court proceedings. Defendant then asked the federal court for attorney's fees. At issue was whether a court could grant reasonable fees to defendant when plaintiff's suit involved both frivolous and non-frivolous claims. The Court held that, when a plaintiff's suit involved both frivolous and non-frivolous claims, a court could grant reasonable fees to defendant, but only for costs that defendant would not have incurred but for the frivolous claims. The Court concluded that, although the District Court noted the usefulness of the attorneys' work in defending against the state law claims, it failed to take proper account of the overlap between the frivolous and non-frivolous claims; the District Court's reasoning that the close relationship between the federal and state law claims supported the award could not be squared with the congressional policy of sparing defendant from the costs only of frivolous litigation; and the Fifth Circuit did not uphold the award on proper ground where it seemed to think that defendant could receive fees for any work useful to defendant against a frivolous claim, even if his lawyers would have done that work regardless. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Fox v. Vice" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), and possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). At sentencing, the district court determined that defendant qualified for the Armed Career Criminal Act's ("ACCA") sentencing enhancement and defendant conceded that two of his prior convictions were for "violent felonies." Defendant argued, however, that none of his six state drug trafficking convictions were for "serious drug offenses" because those crimes no longer carried a "maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). At issue was how a federal court should determine the maximum sentence for a prior state drug offense for ACCA purposes. The Court held that the "maximum term of imprisonment" for a defendant's prior state drug offense was the maximum sentence applicable to his offense when he was convicted of it where the ACCA's plain text required this result by mandating that the court determine whether a "previous conviction" was for a serious drug offense and where the ACCA's broader context confirmed this interpretation. Accordingly, the district court properly applied ACCA's sentencing enhancement to defendant because all of his six prior drug convictions were for "serious drug offenses." View "McNeill v. United States" on Justia Law