Supreme Court - Sliplists, 553 U. S., Part 2

553 U. S., Part 2

Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R041; No. 07-77; 5/27/08. An Alabama election law invalidated by the State Supreme Court under the State Constitution never gained “force or effect” for the purposes of §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Therefore, Alabama’s reinstatement of its prior practice of gubernatorial appointment did not rank as a “change” requiring preclearance.

CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R042; No. 06-1431; 5/27/08. Title 42 U. S. C. §1981—which gives “[a]ll persons . . . the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens”—encompasses a complaint of retaliation against a person who has complained about a violation of another person’s employment-contract-related “right.”

Gomez-Perez v. Potter, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R043; No. 06-1321; 5/27/08. The federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U. S. C. §633a(a)—which requires that “[a]ll personnel actions affecting employees . . . at least 40 years of age . . . be made free from any discrimination based on age”—prohibits retaliation against a federal employee who complains of age discrimination.

United States v. Santos, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R044; No. 06-1005; 6/2/08. The Seventh Circuit’s judgment affirming the District Court’s vacatur of respondents’ money-laundering convictions on the grounds that 18 U. S. C. §1956(a)(1)(A)’s criminal “proceeds” strictures apply only to transactions involving criminal “profits,” not criminal “receipts,” and that there was no evidence that the transactions on which the convictions were based involved profits from respondents’ illegal lottery operation, is affirmed.

Regalado Cuellar v. United States, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R045; No. 06-1456; 6/2/08. Although 18 U. S. C. §1956(a)(2)(B)(i)—which prohibits transporting the proceeds of unlawful activity across the border knowing that the transportation was designed “to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control” of the funds—does not require proof that the defendant attempted to create the appearance of legitimate wealth, neither can it be satisfied solely by evidence that the funds were concealed during transport: The statutory text makes clear that a conviction requires proof that the transportation’s purpose, not merely its effect, was to conceal or disguise one of the listed attributes.

Richlin Security Service Co. v. Chertoff, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R046; No. 06-1717; 6/2/08. A prevailing party that satisfies the Equal Access to Justice Act’s other requirements for reimbursement of attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs may recover paralegal fees from the Government at prevailing market rates.

Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R047; No. 07-474; 6/9/08. The “class-of-one” equal protection theory—under which a claimant alleges that she was mistreated not because she was a member of an identified class (e.g., race, sex, or national origin), but simply for arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons—does not apply in the public employment context.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R048; No. 06-937; 6/9/08. Because the doctrine of patent exhaustion applies to method patents, and because the License Agreement in this case authorizes the sale of components that substantially embody the patents in suit, the exhaustion doctrine prevents respondent from further asserting its patent rights with respect to the patents substantially embodied by those products.

Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R049; No. 07-210; 6/9/08. A plaintiff asserting a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim predicated on mail fraud need not show, either as an element of its claim or as a prerequisite to establishing proximate causation, that it relied on the defendant’s alleged misrepresentations.

Allison Engine Co. v. United States ex rel. Sanders, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R050; No. 07-214; 6/9/08. It is insufficient for a plaintiff asserting a cause of action under the False Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. §3729(a)(2), to show merely that the use of a false statement resulted in payment or approval of a false claim or that Government money was used to pay the claim; instead, such a plaintiff must prove that the defendant intended that the false statement be material to the Government’s decision to pay or approve the false claim. Similarly, it is not enough under §3729(a)(3) for a plaintiff to show that alleged conspirators agreed upon a fraud scheme that had the effect of causing a private entity to make payments using money obtained from the Government; instead, it must be shown that they intended “to defraud the Government.”

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R051; No. 06-1666; 6/12/08. The federal habeas statute extends to American citizens held overseas by American forces operating subject to an American chain of command; federal district courts, however, may not exercise their habeas jurisdiction to enjoin the United States from transferring individuals alleged to have committed crimes and detained within the territory of a foreign sovereign to that sovereign for criminal prosecution.

Irizarry v. United States, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R052; No. 06-7517; 6/12/08. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(h)’s notice requirement does not apply to a variance from a recommended Federal Sentencing Guidelines range.

Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R053; No. 06-1195; 6/12/08. Petitioners, aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba., have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, which cannot be withdrawn except in conformance with the Suspension Clause, Art. I, §9, cl. 2; because the procedures for review of the detainees’ status set forth in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas, §7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which withdraws federal-court habeas jurisdiction with respect to petitioners, operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ.

Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R054; No. 06-1204; 6/12/08. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires dismissal of this interpleader action involving assets of the late Ferdinand Marcos because of the absence of the Republic of the Philippines and a Philippine commission, which are required parties who are immune from suit under the foreign sovereign immunity doctrine.

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U. S. __ (2008)

R055; No. 07-371; 6/12/08. The theory of preclusion by “virtual representation” is disapproved; the preclusive effects of a judgment in a federal-question case decided by a federal court should instead be determined according to the established grounds for nonparty preclusion.

Search Tip: Use the binocular icons to search within PDF documents.

(To view PDF files) Adobe Access PDF to HTML conversion

Last Updated: June 12, 2008
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/sliplists/s553pt2.html