Volume 573 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 573 of the United States Reports:

Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. 25 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, under Stern v. Marshall, when a bankruptcy court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a proceeding, the bankruptcy court may still hear the case and issue proposed findings to be reviewed de novo by a federal district court.

Scialabba v. Cuellar de Osorio, 573 U.S. 41 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that lawful residents in the United States who turned twenty-one while their visa applications were being processed could not retain their original application date after "aging out" of eligibility for child-visas. Those "aged out" were moved to the bottom of the list of applicants for adult visas. The Ninth Circuit Court had originally agreed that provisions in the Child Status Protection Act allowed applicants to retain their date.

POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. 102 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that a statutory private right of action under the Lanham Act is not precluded by regulatory provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Clark v. Rameker, 573 U.S. 122 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that funds held in inherited Individual Retirement Accounts are not "retirement funds" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(3)(c) and therefore not exempt from the bankruptcy estate.

Republic of Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., 573 U.S. 134 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court opinion regarding foreign sovereign immunity. After defaulting on its debt and losing a federal collection action, Argentina claimed that its foreign assets were immune from discovery. The Court found that no such immunity existed.

In the 2010 campaign, Susan B. Anthony List purchased billboard advertisements in the district of former U.S. Representative Steve Driehaus of Ohio that showed a photo of Driehaus and said, "Shame on Steve Driehaus! Driehaus voted FOR taxpayer-funded abortion." The advertisement referred to Driehaus's vote in favor of the health care overhaul bill.

Abramski v. United States, 573 U.S. 169 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that making arrangements for a straw purchase of a gun is in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968, and is different from re-selling or gifting a previously purchased gun. In the Abramski case, a former police officer from Virginia took advantage of a local discount to buy a gun for his uncle and later transferred it to Pennsylvania—the uncle's residence—using the appropriate federal procedure. During the purchase, Abramski falsely declared that he was purchasing the gun for himself.

Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), was a 2014 United States Supreme Court decision about patent eligibility of business method patents. The issue in the case was whether certain patent claims for a computer-implemented, electronic escrow service covered abstract ideas, which would make the claims ineligible for patent protection. The patents were held to be invalid, because the claims were drawn to an abstract idea, and implementing those claims on a computer was not enough to transform that abstract idea into patentable subject matter. Although the Alice opinion did not mention software as such, the case was widely considered as a decision on software patents or patents on software for business methods. Alice and the 2010 Supreme Court decision of Bilski v.

Lane v. Franks, 573 U.S. 228 (2014), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving public employee's freedom of speech rights. Edward Lane sued Steve Franks for unfairly firing him, out of retaliation for sworn testimony Lane gave during a federal fraud case. The Eleventh Circuit originally ruled in favor of Franks, “denying [Lane] first amendment protection to subpoenaed testimony” (Page 6, section I). The case was argued before the Supreme Court on April 28, 2014. The case was decided on June 19, 2014. The Supreme Court sided with Lane that he was not responsible for something he said during a federal trial. However, the court could not award damages, because Frank's qualified immunity protected him from being sued in his personal capacity.

United States v. Clarke, 573 U.S. 248 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a taxpayer who wants to question Internal Revenue Service agents about their motives for issuing a summons may do so if they can point to "specific facts or circumstances plausibly raising an inference of bad faith."

Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding class action certification for a securities fraud claim. Under the fraud-on-the-market theory, the Court had to inquire as to if markets are economically efficient. The Court presumed they are.

Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 573 U.S. 302 (2014), was a US Supreme Court case regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of air pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a conviction of the crime of knowingly executing a scheme to obtain property owned by, or under the custody of, a bank "by means of false or fraudulent pretenses," does not require the government to prove that a defendant intended to defraud a financial institution.

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court found Employee stockownership (ESOP) fiduciaries have the same prudential duties as non-ESOP fiduciaries, as set by ERISA, except that they are not required to diversify their investments beyond shares of the employer's stock.

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc., 573 U.S. 431 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case. The Court ruled that the service provided by Aereo, which allowed subscribers to view live and time-shifted streams of over-the-air television on Internet-connected devices, violated copyright laws.

McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014), is a United States Supreme Court case involving a First Amendment challenge to the validity of a Massachusetts law establishing 35-foot (11 m) fixed buffer zones around facilities where abortions were performed.

2. Whether the President's recess-appointment power may be exercised to fill vacancies that exist during a recess, or is instead limited to vacancies that first arose during that recess.

Harris v. Quinn, 573 U.S. 616 (2014), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court regarding provisions of Illinois state law that allowed a union security agreement. Since the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 prohibited the closed shop, states could still choose whether to allow unions to collect fees from non-union members since the collective agreements with the employer would still benefit non-union members. The Court decided 5–4 that Illinois's Public Labor Relations Act, which permitted the union security agreements, violated the First Amendment. A similar case was decided by the Court in 2018, Janus v AFSCME, overturning the Court's unanimous decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) which the appeals court had upheld in Harris.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, pursuant to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.