Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Petitioners, employed by respondent as pharmaceutical sales representatives, filed suit alleging that respondent violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 206-207, by failing to compensate them for overtime. At issue was whether the term "outside salesman," as defined by the Department of Labor regulations, encompassed pharmaceutical sales representatives whose primary duty was to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer's prescription drugs in appropriate cases. The Court concluded that these employees qualified as outside salesmen under the most reasonable interpretations of the Department's regulations. View "Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp." on Justia Law

Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., certain federal employees could obtain administrative and judicial review of specified adverse employment actions. At issue was whether the CSRA provided the exclusive avenue to judicial review when a qualifying employee challenged an adverse employment action by arguing that a federal statute was unconstitutional. The Court held that it did. The CSRA precluded district court jurisdiction over petitioners' claims because it was fairly discernible that Congress intended the statute's review scheme to provide the exclusive avenue to judicial review for covered employees who challenged covered adverse employment actions, even when those employees argued that a federal statute was unconstitutional. View "Elgin v. Dept. of Treasury" on Justia Law

This case arose when respondent brought an action against petitioners, two Secret Service agents, and others, under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, claiming that he was arrested and searched without probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the arrest violated the First Amendment because it was made in retaliation for respondent's criticism of Vice President Cheney. At issue was whether two federal law enforcement agents were immune from suit for allegedly arresting a suspect in retaliation for his political speech, when the agents had probable cause to arrest the suspect for committing a federal crime. The Court held that petitioners were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of respondent's arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to a First Amendment violation. View "Reichle v. Howards" on Justia Law

An Indiana statute, the "Barrett Law," Ind. Code 36-9-15(b)(3), authorized Indiana's cities to impose upon benefited owners the cost of sewer improvement projects. The Law also permitted those lot owners to pay either immediately in the form of a lump sum or over time in installments. In 2005, the city of Indianapolis adopted a new assessment and payment method, the "STEP" plan, and it forgave any Barrett Law installments that lot owners had not yet paid. A group of lot owners who had already paid their entire Barrett Law assessment in a lump sum believed that the City should have provided them with equivalent refunds. At issue was whether the City's refusal to do so unconstitutionally discriminated against them in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, Amdt. 14, section 1. The Court held that the City had a rational basis for distinguishing between those lot owners who had already paid their share of project costs and those who had not. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no equal protection violation. View "Armour v. Indianapolis" on Justia Law

Debtors obtained a secured loan from an investment fund, for which the Bank served as trustee. Debtors ultimately became insolvent, seeking relief under 11 U.S.C. 1129(b)(2)(A), where debtors sought to confirm a "cramdown" bankruptcy plan over the Bank's objection. The Bankruptcy Court denied debtors' request, concluding that the auction procedures did not comply with section 1129(b)(2)(A)'s requirements for cramdown plans and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court held that debtors could not obtain confirmation of a Chapter 11 cramdown plan that provided for the sale of collateral free and clear of the Bank's lien, but did not permit the Bank to credit-bid at the sale. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank" on Justia Law

A provision of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), 12 U.S.C. 2607(b), prohibited giving and accepting "any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service... other than for services actually performed." Petitioners, three couples who obtained mortgage loans from respondent, filed separate state-court actions, alleging that respondent had violated section 2607(b) by charging them fees for which no services were provided in return. At issue was whether, to establish a violation of section 2607(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge was divided between two or more persons. The Court held that, in order to establish a violation of section 2607(b), a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons. Because petitioners did not contend that respondent split the challenged charges with anyone else, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of respondent. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. View "Freeman, et al. v. Quicken Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

This case arose when defendant was charged with capital murder for the death of a one-year-old. Before the jury concluded deliberations, it reported that it was unanimous against guilt on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder, was deadlocked on manslaughter, and had not voted on negligent homicide. The trial court told the jury to continue to deliberate. The jury did so but still could not reach a verdict, and the trial court declared a mistrial. All agreed that defendant could be retried on charges of manslaughter and negligent homicide. At issue was whether defendant could also be retried on charges of capital and first-degree murder. The Court concluded that the jury in this case did not convict defendant of any offense, but it did not acquit him of any either. When the jury was unable to return a verdict, the trial court properly declared a mistrial and discharged the jury. As a consequence, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not stand in the way of a second trial on the same offenses. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. View "Blueford v. Arkansas" on Justia Law

This case arose from a personal injury action brought by petitioner, a professional baseball player in Japan, against respondent, the owner of a resort in the Northern Mariana Islands. The costs that could be awarded to prevailing parties in lawsuits brought in federal court were set forth in 28 U.S.C. 1920. The Court Interpreters Act amended that statute to include "compensation of interpreters." At issue was whether "compensation of interpreters" covered the cost of translating documents. Because the ordinary meaning of the word "interpreter" was a person who translated orally from one language to another, the Court held that "compensation of interpreters" was limited to the cost of oral translation and did not include the cost of document translation. View "Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd." on Justia Law

An immigration statute, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a), authorized the Attorney General to cancel the removal of an alien from the United States who, among other things, has held the status of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) for at least five years, and has lived in the United States for at least seven continuous years after a lawful admission. Respondents both sought to impute their parents' years of continuous residence or LPR status to themselves. At issue was whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) could reasonably conclude that an alien living in this country as a child must meet those requirements on his own, without counting a parent's years of residence or immigration status. The Court held that the BIA's approach was based on a permissible construction of the statute under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. View "Holder v. Gutierrez; Holder v. Sawyers" on Justia Law

Respondent gave birth to twins conceived through in vitro fertilization using her deceased husband's frozen sperm. Respondent applied for Social Security survivors benefits for the twins, relying on 42 U.S.C. 416(e) of the Social Security Act, which defined child to mean, inter alia, "the child or legally adopted child of an [insured] individual." The Social Security Administration (SSA), however, identified subsequent provisions of the Act, sections 416(h)(2) and (h)(3)(C), as critical, and read them to entitle biological children to benefits only if they qualified for inheritance from the decedent under state intestacy law, or satisfied one of the statutory alternatives to that requirement. The Court concluded that the SSA's reading was better attuned to the statute's text and its design to benefit primarily those supported by the deceased wage earner in his or her lifetime. And even if the SSA's longstanding interpretation was not the only reasonable one, it was at least a permissible construction that garnered the Court's respect under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. View "Astrue v. Capato" on Justia Law