PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases offers expert analysis of the issues, background, and significance of every case slated for argument in the Supreme Court.
As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:
12-1497 Kellog Brown & Root v. United States
1. Whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act--a criminal code provision that tolls the statute of limitations for "any offense" involving fraud against the government "[w]hen the United States is at war," 18 U.S.C. § 3287, and which this Court has instructed must be "narrowly construed" in favor of repose--applies to claims of civil fraud brought by private relators, and is triggered without a formal declaration of war, in a manner that leads to indefinite tolling.
2. Whether, contrary to the conclusion of numerous courts, the False Claims Act's so called "first-to-file" bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5)--which creates a race to the courthouse to reward relators who promptly disclose fraud against the government, while prohibiting repetitive, parasitic claims--functions as a "one-case-at-a-time" rule allowing an infinite series of duplicative claims so long as no prior claim is pending at the time of filing.
1. Whether the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act--a criminal code provision that tolls the statute of limitations for "any offense" involving fraud against the government "[w]hen the United States is at war," 18 U.S.C. § 3287, and which this Court has instructed must be "narrowly construed" in favor of repose--applies to claims of civil fraud brought by private relators, and is triggered without a formal declaration of war, in a manner that leads to indefinite tolling.
2. Whether, contrary to the conclusion of numerous courts, the False Claims Act's so called "first-to-file" bar, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(5)--which creates a race to the courthouse to reward relators who promptly disclose fraud against the government, while prohibiting repetitive, parasitic claims--functions as a "one-case-at-a-time" rule allowing an infinite series of duplicative claims so long as no prior claim is pending at the time of filing.
- Brief for National Whistleblower Center in Support of the Respondent
- Brief for United States in Support of Respondent
13-628 Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky v. John Kerry, Secretary of State
Is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the president's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him"?
Is a federal statute that directs the Secretary of State, on request, to record the birthplace of an American citizen born in Jerusalem as born in "Israel" on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a United States passport unconstitutional on the ground that the statute "impermissibly infringes on the president's exercise of the recognition power reposing exclusively in him"?
13-894 Department of Homeland Security v. Robert J. MacLean
Whether certain statutory protections codified at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A), which are inapplicable when an employee makes a disclosure "specifically prohibited by law," can bar an agency from taking an enforcement action against an employee who intentionally discloses Sensitive Security Information.
Whether certain statutory protections codified at 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)(A), which are inapplicable when an employee makes a disclosure "specifically prohibited by law," can bar an agency from taking an enforcement action against an employee who intentionally discloses Sensitive Security Information.
13-895 and 13-1138 Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama and Alabama Democratic Conference, et al., v. The State of Alabama, et al.
(13-895)
Whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.
(13-1138)
(a). Whether, as the dissenting Judge concluded, this effort amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
(b). Whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim?
(13-895)
Whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans unconstitutionally classify black voters by race by intentionally packing them in districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.
(13-1138)
(a). Whether, as the dissenting Judge concluded, this effort amounted to an unconstitutional racial quota and racial gerrymandering that is subject to strict scrutiny and that was not justified by the putative interest of complying with the non-retrogression aspect of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act?
(b). Whether these plaintiffs have standing to bring such a constitutional claim?
- Brief for Dalton J. Oldham in Support of Appellees
- Brief for Pacific Legal Foundation, Center for Equal Opportunity, and Project 21 in Support of Appellees
- Brief for the Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Alabama Senate in Support of Appellees
13-1032 Direct Marketing Association v. Barbara Brohl
Whether the TIA bars federal court jurisdiction over a suit brought by non-taxpayers to enjoin the informational notice and reporting requirements of a state law that neither imposes a tax, nor requires the collection of a tax, but serves only as a secondary aspect of state tax administration?
Whether the TIA bars federal court jurisdiction over a suit brought by non-taxpayers to enjoin the informational notice and reporting requirements of a state law that neither imposes a tax, nor requires the collection of a tax, but serves only as a secondary aspect of state tax administration?
- Brief for Respondent, Barbara Brohl
- Brief for the National Governors Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Council of State Governments, National League of Cities, United States Conference of Mayors, National Association of Counties, International City/County Management Association, and Government Finance Officers Association in Support of Respondent
13-1041 13-1052 Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association and Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association
13-1041 - Whether a federal agency must engage in notice--and-comment rulemaking before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation.
13-1052 - Whether agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act are categorically prohibited from revising their interpretative rules unless such revisions are made through notice-and--comment rulemaking.
13-1041 - Whether a federal agency must engage in notice--and-comment rulemaking before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation.
13-1052 - Whether agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act are categorically prohibited from revising their interpretative rules unless such revisions are made through notice-and--comment rulemaking.
- Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Quicken Loans Inc. in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Utility Air Regulatory Group and American Forest & Paper Association in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy in Support of Affirmance
13-1080 Department of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads
Does § 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 effect an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private entity?
Does § 207 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 effect an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to a private entity?
13-1174 Gelboim, et al. v. Bank of America Corp
Whether and in what circumstances is the dismissal of an action that has been consolidated with other suits immediately appealable?
Whether and in what circumstances is the dismissal of an action that has been consolidated with other suits immediately appealable?
13-1211 Hana Financial v. Hana Bank
May the jury or the court determine whether use of an older mark may be tacked to a newer one?
May the jury or the court determine whether use of an older mark may be tacked to a newer one?
No comments:
Post a Comment