Volume 578 — United States Reports

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, 578 U.S. 1 (2016), is a United States labor law case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States. At issue in the case was whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) should be overruled, with public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment, and whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring employees to consent affirmatively to subsidizing such speech. Specifically, the case concerned public sector collective bargaining by the California Teachers Association, an affiliate of the National Education Association.

Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. 5 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.

Evenwel v. Abbott, 136 S. Ct. 1120 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the principle of one person, one vote, under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution allows states to use total population, not just total voting-eligible population, to draw legislative districts.

The Sex Offender Registration and Notifcation Act (SORNA) makes it a federal crime for certain sex offenders to “knowingly fai[l] to register or update a registration,” 18 U. S.… Held: SORNA did not require Nichols to update his registration in Kansas once he departed the State. Pp. 108–112. (a) SORNA's plain text dictates this holding. Critical here is § 16913(a)'s use of the present tense. Nichols once resided in Kansas, but after moving, he “resides” in the Philippines.

Decided April 4, 2016 An anonymous tip that two white males traveling on I–96 between Detroit and Grand Rapids in a white Audi were… Held: In reaching its conclusions, the Sixth Circuit did not apply the appro- priate standard of review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which, under the circumstances here, required the federal court to afford “both the state court and the defense attorney the beneft of the doubt,” Burt v. Titlow, 571 U. S.…

Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. 120 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the decision in Johnson v. United States announced a substantive rule change and is therefore retroactive.

Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing, LLC, 578 U.S. 150 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state regulation of the energy market is preempted if it conflicts with requirements set by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including rates.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Hyatt II), 578 U.S. 171 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Nevada rule that does not extend the same immunities to agencies of other states as it does to its own is effectively a "policy of hostility", which is unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Court split equally on the question whether Nevada v. Hall should be overruled, effectively upholding it.

Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's reliance on a requirement that defendants show "additional evidence" to show substantial harm arising from incorrect sentencing guidelines is impermissible.

American nationals may seek money damages from state sponsors of ter- rorism in the courts of the United States. Held: Section 8772 does not violate the separation of powers. Pp. 225–236. (a) Article III of the Constitution establishes an independent Judi- ciary with the “province and duty . . . to say what the law is” in particu- lar cases and controversies. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177.

Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 578 U.S. 253 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the one person, one vote principle under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a state's redistricting commission slight variances in drawing of legislative districts provided that the variance does not exceed 10 percent. The Court found that the map, created by a bipartisan commission on the basis of the 2010 census, was constitutional.

Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. 266 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.

Ocasio v. United States, 578 U.S. 282 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified whether the Hobbs Act's definition of conspiracy to commit extortion only includes attempts to acquire property from someone who is not a member of the conspiracy. The case arose when Samuel Ocasio, a former Baltimore, Maryland police officer, was indicted for participating in a kickback scheme with an automobile repair shop where officers would refer drivers of damaged vehicles to the shop in exchange for cash payments.

Sheriff v. Gillie, 578 U.S. 317 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the use of the Ohio Attorney General's letterhead, as its direction, was permissible and not a false, deceptive, or misleading representation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court vacated and remanded a ruling by United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on the basis that the Ninth Circuit had not properly determined whether the plaintiff has suffered an "injury-in-fact" when analyzing whether he had standing to bring his case in federal court. The Court did not discuss whether "the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate conclusion — that Robins adequately alleged an injury in fact — was correct."

Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, 578 U.S. 355 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the term "actual fraud" in the discharge exceptions of Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code encompasses fraudulent conveyance schemes even when those schemes do not involve a false representation.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 8–0, that the jurisdictional test established by §27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the same as 28 U.S.C. § 1331's test for deciding if a case "arises under" a federal law.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. 403 (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

Decided May 16, 2016 At the time that respondent Hinojosa was incarcerated, he was permitted to accrue good-time credits under California law. Held: Because the Supreme Court of California's summary denial of Hino- josa's petition was on the merits, the Ninth Circuit should have re- viewed his ex post facto claim through AEDPA's deferential lens. Ylst's rebuttable “look through” presumption is amply refuted here.

CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 578 U.S. 419 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether a prevailing party must succeed on the merits to seek attorney's fees. In a unanimous decision authored by Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that a defendant need not succeed on the merits in order to be the prevailing party for the purposes of seeking attorney fees.

Betterman v. Montana, 578 U.S. 437 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that the right to a speedy trial does not guarantee the right to speedy sentencing. It was decided on May 19, 2016.

Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. 452 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided the interpretation of section 1101(a)(43) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which includes "aggravated felony" as a possible reason for deporting a non-citizen. The INA specifies certain offenses described in the federal criminal code as qualifying as an aggravated felony. The question before the court was if the plaintiff Jorge Luna Torres, who had been convicted under a state arson statute mostly identical to the federal statute but lacking an interstate or foreign commerce element in the federal law, fell under this definition of aggravated felony. The Court affirmed the U.S.

Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. 488 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.

Wittman v. Personhuballah, 578 U.S. 539 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the appellants lacked standing under Article III of the United States Constitution to pursue their appeal. The case dealt with redistricting by the Virginia Legislature of Virginia's 3rd congressional district and allegations of gerrymandering based upon race. The appeal was brought by Congressmen David Brat, Randy Forbes, and Rob Wittman.

Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when filing a workplace discrimination complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the filing period begins only after an employee resigns. The filing period begins at the time that the employee gives notice of resignation, not the effective date of resignation.

The Clean Water Act regulates “the discharge of any pollutant” into “the waters of the United States.” 33 U. S. C. §§ 1311(a), 1362(7), (12). Held: The Corps' approved JD is a fnal agency action judicially reviewable under the APA. Pp. 597–602.

Decided May 31, 2016 Under California's “Dixon bar,” a defendant procedurally defaults a claim raised for the frst time on state collateral review if he could have raised it earlier on direct appeal. Held: Because California's Dixon bar is both “frmly established and regu- larly followed,” Beard v. Kindler, 558 U. S. 53, 60, it is an “ `adequate' procedural ground” capable of barring federal habeas review, Walker v. Martin, 562 U. S. 307, 316.

Held: Lynch was entitled to inform the jury that he was parole ineligible. The Arizona Supreme Court's contrary conclusion conficts with Sim- mons and its progeny.

Simmons v. Himmelreich, 578 U.S. 621 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state officials may still be liable for conduct that the state is immune to under exceptions within the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. 632 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "special circumstances" cannot excuse an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, but clarified that inmates are required to exhaust only administrative remedies that are genuinely available. In so doing, it vacated and remanded the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.