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:
12-1226 Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to nonpregnant employees with work limitations must provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."
Whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to nonpregnant employees with work limitations must provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are "similar in their ability or inability to work."
13-271 Oneok, Inc., v. Learjet, Inc.
Does the Natural Gas Act preempt state-law claims challenging industry practices that directly affect the wholesale natural gas market when those claims are asserted by litigants who purchased gas in retail transactions?
Does the Natural Gas Act preempt state-law claims challenging industry practices that directly affect the wholesale natural gas market when those claims are asserted by litigants who purchased gas in retail transactions?
13-485 Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne
Does the United States Constitution prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents-wherever earned-by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states?
Does the United States Constitution prohibit a state from taxing all the income of its residents-wherever earned-by mandating a credit for taxes paid on income earned in other states?
- Brief for the American Legislative Exchange Council in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Council on State Taxation in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the Maryland Chamber of Commerce in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Michael S. Knoll and Ruth Mason in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the National Association of Publicly Traded Partnerships in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center and the National Association of Home Builders in Support of Respondents
- Brief for the Tax Economists in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Tax Executives Institute, Inc. in Support of Respondents
- Brief for Tax Foundation in Support of Respondents
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.
- Brief for American Federation of Government Employees in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Former U.S. Government Officials in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Members of Congress in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Rutherford Institute in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the United States Office of Special Counsel in Support of Respondent
13-983 Elonis v. United States
Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort?
Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a "reasonable person" would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort?
13-1010 M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett
1. When construing collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, may courts presume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and therefore continue indefinitely), as the Sixth Circuit holds; or should require a clear statement that health-care benefits are intended to survive the termination of the collective bargaining agreement, as the Third Circuit holds; or should courts require at least some language in the agreement that can reasonably support an interpretation that health-care benefits should continue indefinitely, as the Second and Seventh Circuits hold?
2. Do, as the Sixth Circuit has held in conflict with the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits, different rules of construction apply when determining whether health-care benefits have vested in pure ERISA plans versus collectively bargained plans.
1. When construing collective bargaining agreements in Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) cases, may courts presume that silence concerning the duration of retiree health-care benefits means the parties intended those benefits to vest (and therefore continue indefinitely), as the Sixth Circuit holds; or should require a clear statement that health-care benefits are intended to survive the termination of the collective bargaining agreement, as the Third Circuit holds; or should courts require at least some language in the agreement that can reasonably support an interpretation that health-care benefits should continue indefinitely, as the Second and Seventh Circuits hold?
2. Do, as the Sixth Circuit has held in conflict with the Second, Third, and Seventh Circuits, different rules of construction apply when determining whether health-care benefits have vested in pure ERISA plans versus collectively bargained plans.
13-1034 Mellouli v. Holder
To trigger deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), must the government prove the connection between a drug paraphernalia conviction and a substance listed in section 802 of the Controlled Substances Act?
To trigger deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), must the government prove the connection between a drug paraphernalia conviction and a substance listed in section 802 of the Controlled Substances Act?
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?
- Brief for American Council of Trustees and Alumni, the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, and Judicial Education Project in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Cato Institute and the National Federation of Independent Business Legal Center in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Center for the Rule of Law in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Professor Alexander Volokh in Support of Respondent
- Brief for Resolute Forest Products Inc. in Support of Respondent
Dems require picture ID to get into their convention but want no such requirement when it comes to voter registration. So we conclude they don't want blacks and illegals in their meetings, but they can vote in their election. Go figure.
ReplyDeleteI am not certain as to what is wrong with the way some of these laws are written, but know this: early voting and anonymous voting (voting without ID) are tools used to falsify election results. dems require ID to enter their meeting halls, but not to vote. clearly they are not serious about ID's.
ReplyDeleteBS
ReplyDeleteTexas has not been able to identify a single instance of in-person voter fraud.
The federal judge said plain and simple... the law is racist.
Written and signed by the Tea la ban.
The judge is an Obama appointee. And she did not say the law was racist "pure and simple." In stead, she said the law was not racist on its face, but was passed into law during a racial charged time and therefore, it was racist.
ReplyDelete