Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Sears, as a debtor in possession, exercised its rights under 11 U.S.C. 363(b)(1) and sold most of its assets to Transform, including the right to designate to whom a lease should be assigned. Section 365 prohibits the assignment of an unexpired lease without “adequate assurance of future performance by the assignee,” and establishes special criteria related to “shopping center[s],” Transform designated the Mall of America lease for assignment. The landlord, MOAC, objected, arguing that Sears had failed to provide adequate assurance. The Bankruptcy Court approved the assignment.Section 363(m) states that the reversal or modification on appeal of a 363(b) authorization of a sale or lease does not affect the validity of a sale or lease to an entity that purchased or leased the property in good faith, even if the entity knew of the pendency of the appeal unless the court entered a stay pending appeal. The Bankruptcy Court denied MOAC’s request for a stay. Sears assigned the lease. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, treating 363(m) as jurisdictional.The Supreme Court vacated. Section 363(m) is not jurisdictional and is not, therefore, impervious to excuses like waiver or forfeiture. The Court noted the consequences of deeming the section jurisdictional–even egregious conduct by a litigant could permit the application of judicial estoppel against a jurisdictional rule. Courts should only treat a provision as jurisdictional if Congress “clearly states” as much. Nothing in 363(m) purports to govern a court’s adjudicatory capacity; it plainly contemplates that appellate courts might reverse or modify any covered authorization, with a limitation on the consequences. Congress separated 363(m) from jurisdictional provisions. The Court rejected Transform’s argument that the transfer to a good-faith purchaser removes the property from the bankruptcy estate, and so from the court’s in rem jurisdiction. View "MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC" on Justia Law

The SEC and FTC initiated enforcement actions. Instead of making a claim within the Commission itself, and then (if needed) in a federal court of appeals, the subjects of the actions filed constitutional claims in federal district courts, arguing that the ALJs are insufficiently accountable to the President, in violation of separation-of-powers principles. One suit also challenged the combination of prosecutorial and adjudicatory functions within the agency. The Ninth Circuit held that the FTC's statutory review scheme precluded district court jurisdiction. The Fifth Circuit disagreed with respect to the SEC.The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and affirmed the Fifth Circuit. The review schemes set out in the Securities Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78a, and the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 41, do not displace district court jurisdiction over the far-reaching constitutional claims at issue.A statutory review scheme may preclude district courts from exercising “federal question” jurisdiction over challenges to federal agency action but does not necessarily extend to every claim. The relevant question is whether the particular claims brought were “of the type Congress intended to be reviewed within this statutory structure.” The claims here challenge functions at the core of the agencies' existence. They do not challenge any specific substantive decision or commonplace procedures. The alleged harm is “being subjected” to “unconstitutional agency authority.” It is impossible to remedy that harm once the proceeding is over and appellate review becomes available. The claims do not depend on winning or losing before the agency. The separation-of-powers claims are collateral to any Commission orders or rules from which review might be sought. The claims are outside the agencies’ expertise. Agency adjudications are generally ill-suited to address structural constitutional challenges and these constitutional claims are not intertwined with matters on which the Commissions are experts. View "Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission" on Justia Law

Petitioners acquired their properties along the road in 1991 and 2004; in 1962, their predecessors in interest had granted the government an easement for the road. The government moved to dismiss the petitioners' suit under the Quiet Title Act, citing the 12-year limitations period, 28 U.S.C. 2409a(g). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court reversed, characterizing section 2409a(g) as a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, intended to promote the orderly progress of litigation. Limits on subject-matter jurisdiction have a unique potential to disrupt the orderly course of litigation, so courts should not lightly apply that label to procedures Congress enacted to keep things running smoothly unless traditional tools of statutory construction plainly show that Congress imbued a procedural bar with jurisdictional consequences. Congress’s separation of a filing deadline from a jurisdictional grant indicates that the time bar is not jurisdictional. The Quiet Title Act’s jurisdictional grant is in section 1346(f ), far from 2409a(g), with nothing linking those separate provisions. Section 2409a(g) speaks only to a claim’s timeliness.The Court characterized a case cited by the government as a “textbook drive-by jurisdictional” ruling that “should be accorded no precedential effect” as to whether a limit is jurisdictional. Rejecting other cited cases, the Court stated that it has never definitively interpreted section 2409a(g) as jurisdictional. View "Wilkins v. United States" on Justia Law

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400, includes administrative procedures for resolving disputes concerning a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for a child with a disability. “Nothing in [IDEA] shall be construed to restrict” the ability of individuals to seek “remedies” under “other Federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities,” section 1415(l), “except that before the filing of a civil action under such [other federal] laws seeking relief that is also available under this subchapter, the procedures under subsections (f) and (g) shall be exhausted.” Those subsections establish the right to a “due process hearing” followed by an “appeal” to the state education agency.Perez, who is deaf, attended Sturgis public schools and was provided with aides to translate classroom instruction into sign language. Perez alleges that the aides were either unqualified or absent from the classroom. Sturgis allegedly promoted Perez regardless of his progress. Perez believed he was on track to graduate from high school. Months before graduation, Sturgis revealed that it would not award him a diploma.Perez filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Education. Before an administrative hearing, the parties settled. Sturgis promised to provide Perez with forward-looking equitable relief, including additional schooling at the Michigan School for the Deaf. Perez then sought compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101. The district court dismissed the suit based on Sixth Circuit precedent.The Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that compensatory damages are unavailable under IDEA. Although Perez’s suit is premised on the denial of a FAPE, the administrative exhaustion requirement applies only to suits that “see[k] relief … also available under” IDEA. View "Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools" on Justia Law

The Disputed Instruments, prepaid financial instruments used to transfer funds to a named payee, are sold by banks on behalf of MoneyGram and others. When these instruments are not presented for payment within a certain period of time, they are deemed abandoned. MoneyGram applies the common-law escheatment practices outlined in 1965 by the Supreme Court: The proceeds of abandoned financial products should escheat to the state of the creditor’s last known address, or where such records are not kept, to the state in which the company holding the funds is incorporated. MoneyGram does not keep records of creditor addresses but transmits the abandoned proceeds to its state of incorporation. States invoked the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction to determine whether the abandoned proceeds of the Disputed Instruments are governed by the Disposition of Abandoned Money Orders and Traveler’s Checks Act (FDA), which provides that a money order or “similar written instrument (other than a third-party bank check)” should generally escheat to the state in which the instrument was purchased, 12 U.S.C. 2503.The Court held that the Disputed Instruments are sufficiently similar to money orders to fall within the FDA’s “similar written instrument” category. Being prepaid makes them likely to escheat. The FDA was passed to abrogate common law because, for instruments like money orders, the entities selling such products often did not keep records of creditor addresses, resulting in a “windfall” to the state of incorporation. Bank liability is not a trigger for exclusion, given that banks can be liable on money orders, which are expressly covered. Whatever the intended meaning of “third-party bank check,” it cannot be read broadly to exclude prepaid instruments that escheat inequitably due to the business practices of the company holding the funds. View "Delaware v. Pennsylvania" on Justia Law

The Bank Secrecy Act requires U.S. persons with financial interests in foreign accounts to file an “FBAR” annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts; 31 U.S.C. 5314 delineates legal duties while section 5321 outlines the penalties, with a maximum $10,000 penalty for non-willful violations. Bittner—a dual citizen of Romania and the U.S.—learned of his reporting obligations in 2011 and subsequently submitted reports covering 2007-2011. The government deemed Bittner’s late reports deficient because they did not address all accounts as to which Bittner had either signatory authority or a qualifying interest. Bittner filed corrected FBARs providing information for 61 accounts in 2007, 51 in 2008, 53 in 2009 and 2010, and 54 in 2011. The government asserted that non-willful penalties apply to each account not accurately or timely reported. Bittner’s reports collectively involved 272 accounts; the government calculated a $2.72 million penalty. The Fifth Circuit affirmed.The Supreme Court reversed. The $10,000 maximum penalty for non-willful failure to file a compliant report accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis. Section 5314 does not address accounts or their number. An individual files a compliant report or does not. For cases involving willful violations, the statute tailors penalties to accounts. When one section of a statute includes language omitted from a neighboring section, the difference normally conveys a different meaning. The Act's implementing regulations require individuals with fewer than 25 accounts to provide details about each account while individuals with 25 or more accounts do not need to list each account or provide account-specific details unless requested by the Secretary. View "Bittner v. United States" on Justia Law

Hewitt filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which guarantees overtime pay to covered employees when they work more than 40 hours a week. From 2014-2017, Hewitt typically worked 84 hours per week on Helix's offshore oil rig, while on the vessel. Helix paid Hewitt a daily rate. Hewitt’s paycheck amounted to his daily rate times the number of days he worked. Hewitt earned over $200,000 annually.Helix argued that Hewitt was exempt from the FLSA as “a bona fide executive,” 29 U.S.C. 213(a)(1). An employee is considered an exempt bona fide executive if the employee meets the “salary basis” test, which requires that an employee receive a predetermined and fixed salary that does not vary with the amount of time worked, the “salary level” test, and the job “duties” test.The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit. Hewitt was not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay guarantee. A daily-rate employee does not fall within the main salary-basis provision of 29 CFR 541.602(a)--the employee regularly receives each pay period a predetermined amount, “not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed.” A daily-rate worker is paid for each day he works and no others. Daily-rate workers, of whatever income level, qualify as paid on a salary basis under 29 CFR 541.604(b) only if an employer also provides a guarantee of weekly payment approximating what the employee usually earns. Reading 602(a) also to cover daily- and hourly-rate employees would subvert 604(b)’s strict conditions on when their pay counts as a “salary.” There is no simple income level test for the exemption. View "Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt" on Justia Law

Kate and David Bartenwerfer remodeled the house they jointly owned. David oversaw the project. Kate remained largely uninvolved. They sold the house to Buckley, attesting that they had disclosed all material facts. Buckley discovered undisclosed defects and won a California state court judgment, leaving the Bartenwerfers jointly responsible for more than $200,000. The Bartenwerfers filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Buckley filed an adversary complaint, alleging that the state-court judgment debt was non-dischargeable as “any debt . . . for money . . . to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud,” 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A).The Bankruptcy Court imputed David's fraudulent intent to Kate, citing their legal partnership to renovate and sell the property. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that section 523(a)(2)(A) barred Kate from discharging the debt only if she knew or had reason to know of David’s fraud. The Ninth Circuit reversed.The Supreme Court affirmed. Section 523(a)(2)(A) precludes Kate from discharging a debt obtained by fraud, regardless of her own culpability. The passive voice in section 523(a)(2)(A) removes the actor; fraud liability is not limited to the wrongdoer. The fraud of one partner should be imputed to other partners, who “received and appropriated the fruits of the fraudulent conduct.” Section 523(a)(2)(A) takes the debt as it finds it, so if California did not extend liability to honest partners, it would have no role. Fraud liability generally requires a special relationship with the wrongdoer and, even then, defenses are available. View "Bartenwerfer v. Buckley" on Justia Law

Cruz, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, argued that under the Supreme Court’s “Simmons” decision, he should have been allowed to inform the jury that a life sentence in Arizona would be without parole. The Arizona Supreme Court held that Arizona’s capital sentencing scheme did not trigger Simmons. The Supreme Court subsequently held ("Lynch" (2016)), that it was fundamental error to conclude that Simmons “did not apply” in Arizona.Cruz sought to raise the Simmons issue under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g), which permits a successive post-conviction petition if “there has been a significant change in the law that, if applicable ... would probably overturn the defendant’s judgment or sentence.” The Arizona Supreme Court denied relief, reasoning that a significant change in the application of a law is not a significant change in the law itself, focusing on whether Lynch was a significant change in federal law.The U.S. Supreme Court vacated. A state procedural ruling that is “firmly established and regularly followed” ordinarily forecloses review of a federal claim but the Arizona ruling rests on such a novel and unforeseeable interpretation of a state-court procedural rule that it is not adequate to foreclose review of the federal claim. Although Lynch did not change the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Simmons, it did change the operation of Simmons by Arizona courts in a way that matters for Rule 32.1(g). The analytic focus of Arizona courts applying Rule 32.1(g) has always been on the impact on Arizona law. View "Cruz v. Arizona" on Justia Law

Approximately 30 years after Arellano’s honorable discharge from the Navy, a VA regional office granted Arellano service-connected disability benefits for his psychiatric disorders. Applying the default rule in 38 U.S.C. 5110(a)(1), the VA assigned an effective date of June 3, 2011—the day that it received Arellano's claim—to the award. Arellano argued that the effective date should be governed by an exception in section 5110(b)(1), which makes the effective date the day following the date of the veteran’s discharge or release if the application “is received within one year from such date of discharge or release.” Alleging that he had been too ill to know that he could apply for benefits, Arellano maintained that this exception’s one-year grace period should be equitably tolled to make his award effective the day after his 1981 discharge.The Board of Veterans’ Appeals, Veterans Court, Federal Circuit, and Supreme Court disagreed. Section 5110(b)(1) is not subject to equitable tolling. Equitably tolling one of the limited exceptions would depart from the terms that Congress “specifically provided.” The exceptions do not operate simply as time constraints, but also as substantive limitations on the amount of recovery due. Congress has already considered equitable concerns and limited the relief available, aware of the possibility that disability could delay an application for benefits. View "Arellano v. McDonough" on Justia Law