Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Akamai is the exclusive licensee of a patent that claims a method of delivering electronic data using a content delivery network (CDN). Limelight also operates a CDN and carries out several of the steps claimed in the patent, but its customers, rather than Limelight itself, perform a step of the patent known as “tagging.” Under Federal Circuit case law, liability for direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(a) requires performance of all steps of a method patent to be attributable to a single party. The district court concluded that Limelight could not have directly infringed the patent at issue because performance of the tagging step could not be attributed to it. The en banc Federal Circuit reversed, holding that a defendant who performed some steps of a method patent and encouraged others to perform the rest could be liable for inducement of infringement even if no one was liable for direct infringement. The Supreme Court reversed. A defendant is not liable for inducing infringement under section 271(b) when no one has directly infringed. The Federal Circuit’s contrary view would deprive section 271(b) of ascertainable standards and require the courts to develop parallel bodies of infringement law. Citing section 271(f), the Court stated that Congress knows how to impose inducement liability predicated on noninfringing conduct when it wishes to do so. Though a would-be infringer could evade liability by dividing performance of a method patent’s steps with another whose conduct cannot be attributed to the defendant, a desire to avoid this consequence does not justify fundamentally altering the rules of inducement liability clearly required by the Patent Act’s text and structure. View "Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Techs, Inc." on Justia Law

Bond sought revenge for her husband’s affair by spreading toxic chemicals on Haynes’s car, mailbox, and door knob, in hopes that Haynes would develop a rash. Haynes suffered a minor chemical burn that she treated by rinsing with water. Federal prosecutors charged Bond with violating the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, which forbids any person knowingly to possess or use "any chemical weapon,” 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1). A “chemical weapon” is “[a]toxic chemical and its precursors, except where intended for a purpose not prohibited under this chapter.” A “toxic chemical” is “any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals … regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.” “[P]urposes not prohibited by this chapter” is defined as“[a]ny peaceful purpose related to an industrial, agricultural, research, medical, or pharmaceutical activity or other activity,” and other specific purposes. Bond pleaded guilty but reserved the right to appeal. On remand, the Third Circuit rejected her Tenth Amendment argument and an argument that section 229 does not reach her conduct. The Supreme Court reversed. Section 229 does not reach Bond’s simple assault. Seeing “no need to interpret the scope of the international Chemical Weapons Convention,” the Court stated that Bond was prosecuted under a federal statute, which, unlike the treaty, must be read consistent with the principles of federalism. There is no indication that Congress intended to reach purely local crimes; an ordinary speaker would not describe Bond’s feud-driven act of spreading irritating chemicals as involving a “chemical weapon.” The chemicals at issue here bear little resemblance to those whose prohibition was the object of an international Convention. Pennsylvania’s laws are sufficient to prosecute assaults like Bond’s, and the “global need to prevent chemical warfare does not require the Federal Government to reach into the kitchen cupboard.“ View "Bond v. United States" on Justia Law

After the Supreme Court held that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid the execution of persons with intellectual disability, Hall asked a Florida state court to vacate his sentence, presenting evidence that included an IQ test score of 71. The court denied relief, determining that a Florida statute mandated that he show an IQ score of 70 or below before being permitted to present any additional intellectual disability evidence. The state’s highest court rejected Hall’s appeal, finding the 70-point threshold constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed. Florida’s rule disregards established medical practice that an individual score is best understood as a range. While nothing in its statute precludes Florida from considering an IQ test’s standard error of measurement, a statistical fact reflecting the test’s inherent imprecision, the interpretation of the Florida Supreme Court takes an IQ score as conclusive evidence of intellectual capacity. The interpretation fails to recognize that measurement’s inherent imprecision and bars consideration of other relevant evidence, e.g., deficits in adaptive functioning, including evidence of past performance, environment, and upbringing. Current thinking does not regard this strict cutoff as proper or humane. When a defendant’s IQ test score falls within the test’s acknowledged and inherent margin of error, the defendant must be able to present additional evidence of intellectual disability, including testimony regarding adaptive deficits. View "Hall v. Florida" on Justia Law

Martinez was indicted in 2006 on charges of aggravated battery and mob action against the state. After significant delays, caused by both sides, his trial was set to begin on May 17, 2010. His counsel was ready; the prosecution was not because it was unable to locate its complaining witnesses. The court delayed swearing the jurors, but ultimately told the state that it could at that point either have the jury sworn or move to dismiss its case. After several hours, the court swore in the jury and asked the state to present its first witness. It declined to present any evidence or participate in the trial. Martinez successfully moved for a directed not-guilty verdict. The court rejected a motion for a continuance, noting that the prosecution had named other witnesses and that the missing witnesses should have been relatively easy to locate. The Illinois Supreme Court allowed the state’s appeal, on the theory that jeopardy never attached because Martinez “was never at risk of conviction.” The Supreme Court reversed, citing the ”bright-line rule” that “jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.” Martinez may not be retried. View "Martinez v. Illinois" on Justia Law

After a traffic stop, Rickard refused to produce identification or step out of the car, but led police officers on a high-speed chase. After a spin-out in a parking lot, Rickard continued to accelerate, even though his bumper was flush against a patrol car. An officer fired three shots into Rickard’s car. Rickard managed to drive away, almost hitting an officer. Officers fired 12 more shots as Rickard sped away, striking him and his passenger, both of whom died from a combination of gunshot wounds and injuries suffered when the car crashed. Rickard’s minor daughter filed a 42 U.S.C.1983 action, alleging excessive force. The district court denied the officers’ motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity, holding that their conduct violated the Fourth Amendment and was contrary to clearly established law. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. After holding that the Sixth Circuit properly exercised jurisdiction, the Supreme Court reversed. The officers acted reasonably in using deadly force. Rickard’s outrageously reckless driving, lasting more than five minutes, exceeded 100 miles per hour, and included passing more than two dozen other motorists. The conduct posed a grave public safety risk. Under the circumstances when the shots were fired, all that a reasonable officer could have concluded from Rickard’s conduct was that he was intent on resuming his flight, which would pose a threat to others on the road. The officers did not fire more shots than necessary to end the public safety risk. During the 10-second span when all the shots were fired, Rickard never abandoned his attempt to flee and eventually managed to drive away. A passenger’s presence does not bear on whether officers violated Rickard’s Fourth Amendment rights. View "Plumhoff v. Rickard" on Justia Law

The State of Michigan entered into a compact with the Bay Mills Indian Community pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(1)(C). The compact authorizes Bay Mills to conduct class III gaming activities (a casino) on Indian lands within the state, but prohibits it from doing so outside that territory. Bay Mills opened a second casino on land it had purchased through a congressionally established land trust. The Tribe claimed it could operate a casino there because the property qualified as Indian land. Michigan sued under section 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii), which allows a state to enjoin gaming activity conducted in violation of any tribal-state compact. The district court granted the injunction, but the Sixth Circuit vacated, holding that tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit unless Congress provided otherwise; section 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) only authorized suits to enjoin gaming activity located “on Indian lands,” while the complaint alleged the casino was outside such territory. The Supreme Court affirmed. As “domestic dependent nations,” Indian tribes exercise “inherent sovereign authority” that is subject to plenary control by Congress; unless Congress acts, the tribes retain their historic sovereign authority. Among the core aspects of that sovereignty is “common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers,” which applies whether a suit is brought by a state or arises from a tribe’s commercial activities off Indian lands. IGRA’s plain terms do not authorize this suit. Section 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) partially abrogates tribal immunity with respect to class III gaming located “on Indian lands,” but the premise of Michigan’s suit is that Bay Mills’ casino is unlawful because it is outside Indian lands. Michigan argues that the casino is licensed and operated from within the reservation and that such administrative action constitutes “class III gaming activity.” IGRA’s provisions and history indicate that “class III gaming activity” refers to the gambling that goes on in a casino, not the offsite licensing of such games. View "Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty" on Justia Law

While campaigning for a second term, President George W. Bush planned to spend the night at a Jacksonville, Oregon, cottage. Local law enforcement permitted supporters and protesters to assemble on opposite sides of a street along the motorcade route. The President made a last-minute decision to have dinner at an Inn’s outdoor patio before going to the cottage. Protesters moved to the front of the Inn, within weapons range of the President. Supporters remained in their original location, where a building blocked sight of, and weapons access to, the patio. At the direction of the Secret Service, police moved protesters two blocks away. They did not require guests already inside the Inn to leave, avoid the patio, or go through security screening. After the President dined, his motorcade passed the supporters, but the protesters were beyond his sight and hearing. Protesters sued, alleging that the agents engaged in viewpoint discrimination, violating the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court, holding that the protesters failed to state a claim under the Bell Atlantic and Iqbal decisions (rendered after they filed suit). On remand, protesters added allegations that the agents acted pursuant to unwritten Secret Service policy of working with the Bush White House to inhibit expression of disfavored views at presidential appearances. The district court denied a motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding that viewpoint discrimination could be inferred, absent a legitimate security rationale for different treatment of the groups. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agents are entitled to qualified immunity. At the time of the incident, the Court had addressed a constitutional challenge to Secret Service actions only once, recognizing the overwhelming importance of safeguarding the President. There was no precedent indicating that agents engaged in crowd control bear a First Amendment obligation to make sure that groups with conflicting views are at all times in equivalent positions. Maintenance of equal access would not make sense in the situation the agents confronted, where only the protesters, not the supporters, had a direct line of sight to the President. A map shows that, because of the protesters’ location, they posed a potential security risk, while the supporters did not. The agents could keep a close watch on the small number of people already inside the Inn, surveillance that would have been impossible for the hundreds of people outside the Inn. View "Wood v. Moss" on Justia Law

The Copyright Act protects works published before 1978 for 28 years, renewable for up to 67 years, 17 U.S.C. 304(a). An author’s heirs inherit renewal rights. If an author who has assigned rights dies before the renewal period the assignee may continue to use the work only if the author’s successor transfers renewal rights to the assignee. The Act provides for injunctive relief and damages. Civil actions must be commenced within three years after the claim accrued-ordinarily when an infringing act occurred. Under the separate-accrual rule, each successive violation starts a new limitations period, but is actionable only within three years of its occurrence. The movie, Raging Bull, is based on the life of boxer Jake LaMotta, who, with Petrella, told his story in a screenplay copyrighted in 1963. In 1976 they assigned their rights and renewal rights to MGM. In 1980 MGM released, and registered a copyright in, Raging Bull. Petrella died during the initial copyright term, so renewal rights reverted to his daughter, who renewed the 1963 copyright in 1991. Seven years later, she advised MGM that it was violating her copyright. Nine years later she filed suit, seeking damages and injunctive relief for violations occurring after January 5, 2006. The district court dismissed, citing laches. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. Laches cannot bar a claim for damages brought within the three-year window. By permitting retrospective relief only three years back, the limitations period takes account of delay. Noting the “essentially gap-filling, not legislation-overriding,” nature of laches, the Court stated that it has never applied laches to entirely bar claims for discrete wrongs occurring within a federally prescribed limitations period. It is not incumbent on copyright owners to challenge every actionable infringement; there is nothing untoward about waiting to see whether a violation undercuts the value of the copyrighted work, has no effect, or even complements the work. The limitations period, with the separate-accrual rule, allows an owner to defer suit until she can estimate whether litigation is worth the effort. Because a plaintiff bears the burden of proof, evidence unavailability is as likely to affect plaintiffs as defendants. The Court noted that in some circumstances, the equitable defense of estoppel might limit remedies. Allowing this suit to proceed will put at risk only a fraction of what MGM has earned from Raging Bull and will work no unjust hardship on innocent third parties. Should Petrella prevail on the merits, the court may fashion a remedy taking account of the delay and MGM’s alleged reliance on that delay. View "Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc." on Justia Law

Robers, convicted of submitting fraudulent mortgage loan applications to two banks, argued that the district court miscalculated his restitution obligation under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A–3664, which requires property crime offenders to pay “an amount equal to ... the value of the property” less “the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned.” The court ordered Robers to pay the difference between the amount lent to him and the amount the banks received in selling houses that had served as collateral. Robers argued that the court should have reduced the restitution amount by the value of the houses on the date on which the banks took title to them since that was when “part of the property” was “returned.” The Seventh Circuit and a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. “Any part of the property ... returned” refers to the property the banks lost: the money lent to Robers, not to the collateral the banks received. Because valuing money is easier than valuing other property, this “natural reading” facilitates the statute’s administration. For purposes of the statute’s proximate-cause requirement, normal market fluctuations do not break the causal chain between the fraud and losses incurred by the victim. Even assuming that the return of collateral compensates lenders for their losses under state mortgage law, the issue here is whether the statutory provision, which does not purport to track state mortgage law, requires that collateral received be valued at the time the victim received it. The rule of lenity does not apply here. View "Robers v. United States" on Justia Law

At 2:00 a.m., December 31, 2008, Officer Edwards was patrolling Bellaire, Texas. He saw a black Nissan SUV park in front of a house; Tolan and Cooper emerged. Edwards attempted to enter the license plate number into his squad car computer, but entered an incorrect character that matched a stolen vehicle of the same color and make, which triggered an automatic alert to other police units. Edwards exited his cruiser, drew his gun and ordered the men to the ground. Accused of having stolen the car, Cooper responded, “That’s not true” and Tolan stated, “That’s my car.” Tolan laid down on the porch of the home where he lived with his parents, who came outside. Tolan’s father told Cooper to lie down, then identified Tolan and Cooper (his nephew). Tolan’s mother stated that the vehicle belonged to the family. Sergeant Cotton arrived and drew his pistol. Tolan’s mother reiterated that they owned the car. Cotton ordered her to stand against the garage. She responded, “[A]re you kidding me? We’ve lived her[e] 15 years.” Tolan, his mother, and Cooper later testified that Cotton grabbed her arm and slammed her against the garage with such force that she fell to the ground. There was photographic evidence of bruises on her arms and back. Cotton testified that he was escorting her to the garage, when she flipped her arm up and told him to get his hands off her. Tolan testified that, seeing his mother being pushed, he rose to his knees. Edwards and Cotton testified that Tolan rose to his feet. All agree that Tolan exclaimed, “[G]et your fucking hands off my mom.” Cotton drew his pistol and fired at Tolan, hitting Tolan’s chest, collapsing his right lung and piercing his liver. He survived, but suffered an injury that disrupted his budding baseball career and causes him pain on a daily basis. Dismissing a suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, the district court found that Cotton’s use of force was not unreasonable. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated. In holding that Cotton’s actions did not violate clearly-established law, the Fifth Circuit failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Tolan as required on summary judgment; it failed to credit evidence that contradicted key factual conclusions, concerning whether the porch was dimly-lit, whether Tolan’s mother refused to remain calm, whether Tolan was verbally threatening, and whether Tolan was moving to intervene. View "Tolan v. Cotton" on Justia Law