Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves a dispute between Coinbase, Inc., a cryptocurrency exchange platform, and its users. The users had agreed to two contracts with Coinbase. The first contract, the User Agreement, contained an arbitration provision stating that an arbitrator must decide all disputes, including whether a disagreement is arbitrable. The second contract, the Official Rules for a promotional sweepstakes, contained a forum selection clause stating that California courts have sole jurisdiction over any controversies regarding the promotion. The users filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that the sweepstakes violated various California laws. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration based on the User Agreement’s arbitration provision. The District Court denied the motion, ruling that the Official Rules’ forum selection clause controlled the dispute. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this decision.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Ninth Circuit's decision. The Court held that when parties have agreed to two contracts—one sending arbitrability disputes to arbitration, and the other either explicitly or implicitly sending arbitrability disputes to the courts—a court must decide which contract governs. The Court rejected Coinbase's arguments that the Ninth Circuit should have applied the severability principle and that the Ninth Circuit erroneously held that the Official Rules’ forum selection clause superseded the User Agreement’s arbitration provision. The Court also dismissed Coinbase's concern that its ruling would invite chaos by facilitating challenges to delegation clauses. The Court concluded that a court, not an arbitrator, must decide whether the parties’ first agreement was superseded by their second. View "Coinbase v. Suski" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the United States was tasked with interpreting the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) in relation to state drug convictions that occurred before recent amendments to the federal drug schedules. The ACCA imposes a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence on defendants convicted for illegal firearm possession who have a criminal history demonstrating a propensity for violence. A defendant with three previous convictions for a "serious drug offense" qualifies for ACCA's enhanced sentencing.Petitioners Justin Rashaad Brown and Eugene Jackson were separately convicted of the federal crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. In both cases, an ACCA enhancement was recommended based on prior state felony drug convictions. Both defendants argued that their prior convictions did not qualify as "serious drug offenses" due to changes in the federal definition of the drugs involved in their convictions. The District Courts disagreed and sentenced the petitioners to enhanced sentences, and the respective appellate courts affirmed.The Supreme Court held that a state drug conviction counts as an ACCA predicate if it involved a drug on the federal schedules at the time of that conviction. The Court reasoned that the ACCA is a recidivist statute that gauges what a defendant’s “history of criminal activity” says about his or her “culpability and dangerousness.” The Court also noted that the Government’s interpretation best fulfills ACCA’s statutory objectives. The Court affirmed the judgments of the Courts of Appeals. View "Brown v. United States" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Stuart Harrow, a Department of Defense employee who was furloughed for six days. Harrow challenged this decision before the Merit Systems Protection Board. After a five-year delay, the Board ruled against him. Harrow had the right to appeal this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit within 60 days of the Board's final order. However, Harrow did not learn about the Board's decision until after the 60-day period had elapsed, and he filed his appeal late. Harrow requested the Federal Circuit to overlook his untimeliness and equitably toll the filing deadline. The Federal Circuit, however, denied his request, believing that the deadline was an unalterable "jurisdictional requirement."The Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the case. The main issue was whether the 60-day filing deadline under Section 7703(b)(1) was jurisdictional, meaning it marked the bounds of a court's power and could not be waived or subject to exceptions. The Supreme Court held that the 60-day filing deadline was not jurisdictional. The Court reasoned that procedural rules, even when phrased in mandatory terms, are generally subject to exceptions like waiver, forfeiture, and equitable tolling. The Court found no language in Section 7703(b)(1) that suggested it was a jurisdictional requirement. The Court also rejected the Government's argument that the term "pursuant to" in a different statute, 28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(9), made the deadline jurisdictional.The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Federal Circuit was directed to determine whether equitable tolling was available and, if so, whether Harrow was entitled to that relief given the facts of the case. View "Harrow v. Department of Defense" on Justia Law

The case involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its funding mechanism. The CFPB, unlike most federal agencies, has a standing source of funding outside the ordinary annual appropriations process. Congress authorized the CFPB to draw from the Federal Reserve System an amount that its Director deems “reasonably necessary to carry out” the Bureau’s duties, subject only to an inflation-adjusted cap. Several trade associations representing payday lenders and credit-access businesses challenged this funding mechanism, arguing that it violates the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution.The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the associations, ruling that the CFPB's funding mechanism violates the Appropriations Clause. The court reasoned that the Appropriations Clause requires both Chambers of Congress to periodically agree on an agency’s funding, which ensures that each Chamber reserves the power to unilaterally block those funding measures through inaction. The CFPB's funding mechanism, the court argued, allows it to draw funds indefinitely unless both Chambers of Congress step in and affirmatively prevent the agency from doing so.The Supreme Court of the United States, however, reversed the Fifth Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court held that Congress’ statutory authorization allowing the Bureau to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out the Bureau’s duties satisfies the Appropriations Clause. The Court reasoned that under the Appropriations Clause, an appropriation is a law that authorizes expenditures from a specified source of public money for designated purposes. The statute that provides the Bureau’s funding meets these requirements. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Bureau’s funding mechanism does not violate the Appropriations Clause. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd." on Justia Law

The case involves the interpretation of Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which outlines procedures for enforcing arbitration agreements in federal court. The petitioners, current and former delivery drivers for an on-demand delivery service operated by the respondents, filed a lawsuit alleging violations of federal and state employment laws. The respondents moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the suit. The petitioners agreed that their claims were arbitrable but argued that Section 3 of the FAA required the District Court to stay the action pending arbitration rather than dismissing it entirely. The District Court issued an order compelling arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision.The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision. The Supreme Court held that when a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, Section 3 of the FAA compels the court to issue a stay, and the court lacks discretion to dismiss the suit. The Court reasoned that the statutory text, structure, and purpose all point to this conclusion. The Court further explained that the FAA's structure and purpose confirm that a stay is required. The Court concluded that staying rather than dismissing a suit comports with the supervisory role that the FAA envisions for the courts. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Smith v. Spizzirri" on Justia Law

The case involves two petitioners, Halima Culley and Lena Sutton, who loaned their cars to others who were subsequently arrested for drug-related offenses. The cars were seized under Alabama's civil forfeiture law, which allowed for the seizure of a car "incident to an arrest" as long as the state promptly initiated a forfeiture case. The State of Alabama filed forfeiture complaints against the cars 10 and 13 days after their seizure, respectively. While the forfeiture proceedings were pending, Culley and Sutton each filed purported class-action complaints in federal court, claiming that state officials violated their due process rights by retaining their cars during the forfeiture process without holding preliminary hearings.The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the petitioners' claims, holding that a timely forfeiture hearing affords claimants due process and that no separate preliminary hearing is constitutionally required. The petitioners argued that the Due Process Clause requires a separate preliminary hearing before the forfeiture hearing.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's decision. The Court held that in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a timely forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary hearing. The Court's decision was based on its precedents, which established that a timely forfeiture hearing satisfies due process in civil forfeiture cases. The Court also noted that historical practice reinforces its conclusion that due process does not require preliminary hearings in civil forfeiture cases. View "Culley v. Marshall" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Sherman Nealy and Warner Chappell Music, Inc. Nealy, who co-founded Music Specialist, Inc. in 1983, alleged that he held the copyrights to the company's songs and that Warner Chappell's licensing activities infringed his rights. The infringing activity, according to Nealy, dated back to 2008, ten years before he brought suit. Nealy sought damages and profits for the alleged misconduct, as authorized by the Copyright Act. To proceed with his claims, Nealy had to show they were timely under the Copyright Act, which requires a plaintiff to file suit "within three years after the claim accrued." Nealy argued that all his claims were timely under the discovery rule because he did not learn of Warner Chappell’s infringing conduct until 2016, less than three years before he sued.In the District Court, Warner Chappell accepted that the discovery rule governed the timeliness of Nealy’s claims. However, it argued that even if Nealy could sue under that rule for infringements going back ten years, he could recover damages or profits for only those occurring in the last three. The District Court agreed, and Nealy appealed. The Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision, rejecting the notion of a three-year damages bar on a timely claim.The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the Eleventh Circuit's decision. The Court held that the Copyright Act entitles a copyright owner to obtain monetary relief for any timely infringement claim, no matter when the infringement occurred. The Act’s statute of limitations establishes a three-year period for filing suit, which begins to run when a claim accrues. That provision establishes no separate three-year limit on recovering damages. If any time limit on damages exists, it must come from the Act’s remedial sections. But those provisions merely state that an infringer is liable either for statutory damages or for the owner’s actual damages and the infringer’s profits. There is no time limit on monetary recovery. So a copyright owner possessing a timely claim is entitled to damages for infringement, no matter when the infringement occurred. View "Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy" on Justia Law

The case revolves around Louis McIntosh, who was indicted on multiple counts of Hobbs Act robbery and firearm offenses. The indictment demanded that McIntosh forfeit all property derived from proceeds traceable to the commission of the offenses. The Government later provided McIntosh with a pretrial bill of particulars that included as property subject to forfeiture $75,000 in cash and a BMW that McIntosh purchased just five days after one of the robberies. After a jury convicted McIntosh, the District Court imposed a forfeiture of $75,000 and the BMW at the sentencing hearing. However, the Government failed to submit an order of forfeiture for the court’s signature within a week from the hearing as ordered by the District Court.On appeal, the Government moved for a limited remand to supplement the record with a written order of forfeiture. The Second Circuit granted the unopposed motion. Back in District Court, McIntosh argued that the failure to comply with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(2)(B) meant that the District Court could not proceed with forfeiture at all. The District Court overruled McIntosh’s objections, finding that the Rule is a time-related directive, and that the failure to enter a preliminary order of forfeiture before sentencing did not prevent the court from ordering forfeiture because the missed deadline did not prejudice McIntosh. The Second Circuit affirmed in relevant part.The Supreme Court of the United States held that a district court’s failure to comply with Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B)’s requirement to enter a preliminary order before sentencing does not bar a judge from ordering forfeiture at sentencing subject to harmless-error principles on appellate review. The Court agreed with the Second Circuit and the Government that Rule 32.2(b)(2)(B) establishes a time-related directive. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. View "McIntosh v. United States" on Justia Law

Sergeant Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow, a police officer in the St. Louis Police Department, alleged that she was transferred from her position in the Intelligence Division to a uniformed job in another department because of her gender. Despite maintaining her rank and pay, Muldrow's responsibilities, perks, and schedule were significantly altered. She filed a Title VII suit against the City of St. Louis, claiming that the transfer constituted sex discrimination with respect to her employment terms and conditions.The District Court granted the City summary judgment, and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that Muldrow had to show that the transfer caused her a "materially significant disadvantage." The courts ruled that since the transfer did not result in a reduction to her title, salary, or benefits and only caused minor changes in working conditions, Muldrow's lawsuit could not proceed.The Supreme Court of the United States disagreed with the lower courts' interpretation of Title VII. The Court held that an employee challenging a job transfer under Title VII must show that the transfer brought about some harm with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment, but that harm need not be significant. The Court rejected the City's arguments based on statutory text, precedent, and policy, and vacated the judgment of the Eighth Circuit, remanding the case for further proceedings under the correct Title VII standard. The Court clarified that Muldrow only needed to show some injury respecting her employment terms or conditions, not that the harm was significant. View "Muldrow v. City of St. Louis" on Justia Law

Richard DeVillier and over 120 other property owners in Texas alleged that the State of Texas had taken their property for stormwater storage without just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The state had installed a barrier along a highway median to prevent stormwater from covering the road, which resulted in flooding on the petitioners' land during heavy rainfall. DeVillier argued that the Takings Clause itself authorized him to bring suit, even if the legislature had not affirmatively provided a cause of action.The District Court denied Texas' motion to dismiss the federal inverse-condemnation claim, concluding that a property owner may sue a State directly under the Takings Clause. However, the Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a state.The Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found that Texas law provides a cause of action that allows property owners to vindicate their rights under the Takings Clause. Therefore, DeVillier's claims may proceed under Texas' state-law cause of action. The Court did not resolve the question of whether a property owner may sue for just compensation directly under the Takings Clause, as it was not necessary to do so in this case. View "DeVillier v. Texas" on Justia Law