Volume 577 — United States Reports

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.

Held: “we think the police need not have taken that chance and hoped for the best.” Id., at 583 (alteration and internal quotation marks omit- ted).

Respondent Carol Sachs, a California resident, purchased a Eurail pass over the Internet from a Massachusetts-based travel agent. Held: Sachs's suit falls outside the commercial activity exception and is therefore barred by sovereign immunity. Pp. 32–38. (a) Sachs's suit is not “based upon” the sale of the Eurail pass for purposes of § 1605(a)(2).

Since 1976, federal law has mandated that a “district court of three judges shall be convened . . . when an action is fled challenging the constitu- tionality of the apportionment of congressional… Held: Section 2284 entitles petitioners to make their case before a three- judge court. Pp. 42–46. (a) Section 2284(a)'s prescription could not be clearer.

Petitioner DIRECTV, Inc., and its customers entered into a service agree- ment that included a binding arbitration provision with a class- arbitration waiver. Held: the parties had in fact included California law as it would have been without federal pre-emption. Held: Because the California Court of Appeal's interpretation is pre- empted by the Federal Arbitration Act, that court must enforce the arbitration agreement. Pp. 53–59.

Decided December 14, 2015 During the jury selection process in respondent Roger Wheeler's state murder trial, the prosecution moved to strike… Held: The Sixth Circuit's determination contravenes this Court's control- ling precedents. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, federal habeas review of respondent's claim—much like that of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim—must be “ ` “doubly defer- ential.” ' ” Burt v. Titlow, 571 U. S. 12, 15.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides that prisoners quali- fied to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) must nonetheless pay an ini- tial partial filing fee, set as “20 percent of the… Held: Section 1915(b)(2) calls for simultaneous, not sequential, recoup- ment of multiple monthly installment payments. Pp. 5–8. (a) Bruce and the Government present competing interpretations of the IFP statute, which does not explicitly address how multiple filing fees should be paid.

Hurst v. Florida, 577 U.S. 92 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court, in an 8–1 ruling, applied the rule of Ring v. Arizona to the Florida capital sentencing scheme, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty. In Florida, under a 2013 statute, the jury made recommendations but the judge decided the facts.

Kansas v. Carr, 577 U.S. 108 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified several procedures for sentencing defendants in capital cases. Specifically, the Court held that judges are not required to affirmatively instruct juries about the burden of proof for establishing mitigating evidence, and that joint trials of capital defendants "are often preferable when the joined defendants’ criminal conduct arises out of a single chain of events". This case included the last majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia before his death in February 2016.

Employee benefts plans regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) often contain subrogation clauses requir- ing a plan participant to reimburse the plan for medical… Held: When an ERISA-plan participant wholly dissipates a third-party settlement on nontraceable items, the plan fduciary may not bring suit under § 502(a)(3) to attach the participant's separate assets. Pp. 142–151.

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified whether a case becomes moot when a party provides a settlement offer that satisfies a named plaintiff's claims in a class action suit and whether a government contractor is entitled to "derivative sovereign immunity".

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that its previous ruling in Miller v. Alabama (2012), that a mandatory life sentence without parole should not apply to persons convicted of murder committed as juveniles, should be applied retroactively. This decision potentially affects up to 2,300 cases nationwide.

Petitioner Musacchio resigned as president of Exel Transportation Services (ETS) in 2004, but with help from the former head of ETS' information-technology department, he accessed ETS' computer… Held: A suffciency challenge should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime, not against the elements set forth in an erroneous jury instruction. Suffciency review essentially addresses whether the Government's case was strong enough to reach the jury.

Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, 577 U.S. 250 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified when litigants are entitled to equitable tolling of a statute of limitations. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that the plaintiff in this case was not entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations because they did not demonstrate that "extraordinary circumstances" prevented the timely filing of the lawsuit.

The Federal Power Act (FPA) authorizes the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to regulate “the sale of electric energy at whole- sale in interstate commerce,” including both wholesale… Held: The FPA provides FERC with the authority to regulate wholesale market operators' compensation of demand response bids. The Court's analysis proceeds in three parts. First, the practices at issue directly affect wholesale rates. Second, FERC has not regulated retail sales.

Held: The Idaho Supreme Court is bound by this Court's interpretation of federal law and erred in concluding otherwise. “ `It is this Court's responsibility to say what a [federal] statute means, and once the Court has spoken, it is the duty of other courts to respect that understanding of the governing rule of law.' ” Nitro-Lift Technologies, L. L. C. v. Howard, 568 U. S. 17, 21.

Held: The Ninth Circuit failed to properly evaluate the stockholders' com- plaint by failing to assess whether the complaint in its current form “plausibly allege[s]” a claim for breach of the duty of prudence. This Court's examination of that complaint has not found suffcient facts and allegations to state such a claim.

Vermont law requires certain entities, including health insurers, to report payments relating to health care claims and other information relating to health care services to a state agency for… Held: ERISA pre-empts Vermont’s statute as applied to ERISA plans. Pp. 5–13. (a) ERISA expressly pre-empts “any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.” 29 U. S. C. §1144 (a).

Lockhart v. United States, 577 U.S. 347 (2016), is a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the interpretation of a federal statute. 18 U.S.C. § 2252(b)(2) states that a defendant convicted of possessing child pornography is subject to a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence if they have "a prior conviction...under the laws of any State relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor or ward." Avondale Lockhart, convicted of possession of child pornography, had a prior conviction for sexual abuse of his 53-year-old girlfriend under New York State law. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison under § 2252(b)(2).

Respondents, corporate citizens of Delaware, Nebraska, and Illinois, sued petitioner Americold Realty Trust, a “real estate investment trust” or- ganized under Maryland law, in a Kansas court. Held: For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Americold's citizenship is based on the citizenship of its members, which include its shareholders. Pp. 380–384.

Decided March 7, 2016 Two years after Eric Walber's brutal murder, Sam Scott implicated Mi- chael Wearry, testifying at Wearry's trial that Wearry and Randy Hutch- inson stopped… Held: Because the prosecution failed to disclose material evidence, Wear- ry's due process rights were violated and he is entitled to a new trial. Under Brady, Wearry must show only that the new evidence is suffcient to undermine confdence in the verdict. See Smith v. Cain, 565 U. S. 73, 75.

Decided March 7, 2016 While V. L. and E. L., two women, were in a relationship, they sought to make V. L. a legal parent of the children whom E. L. had given birth to and whom… Held: The Alabama Supreme Court erred in refusing to grant the Georgia judgment full faith and credit. The Full Faith and Credit Clause for- bids a State to disregard the judgment of a sister State because it dis- agrees with the reasoning underlying the judgment or deems it to be wrong on the merits.

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously vacated a Massachusetts conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self-defense.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) set aside 104 million acres of land in Alaska for preservation purposes. Held: The Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Section 103(c) is inconsistent with both the text and context of ANILCA. Pp. 438–441.

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which held that representative evidence could be used to support the claims of the class. The case arose as a class action lawsuit against Tyson Foods. The Supreme Court affirmed the Eighth Circuit's judgment that the class satisfied the predominance requirement of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's Rule 23 and that the use of representative evidence was allowable in this case. It has been cited by lower courts and has spawned significant academic discussion.

Nebraska v. Parker, 577 U.S. 481 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Congress's 1882 Act did not diminish the Omaha Indian Reservation. The disputed land is within the reservation's boundaries.