Volume 580 — United States Reports

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2016 term, which began October 3, 2016 and concluded October 1, 2017.

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U.S. 5 (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the application of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause to cases in which a jury returns irreconcilable verdicts that convict a defendant on one count and acquit a defendant on another count when both counts rely upon the same ultimate fact.

The False Claims Act (FCA) authorizes private parties (known as rela- tors) to seek recovery from persons who make false or fraudulent pay- ment claims to the Federal Government, 31 U. S. C. §§… Held: A seal violation does not mandate dismissal of a relator's complaint. Pp. 33–37. (a) The FCA does not enact so harsh a rule. Section 3730(b)(2)'s requirement that a complaint “shall” be kept under seal is a mandatory rule for relators.

Salman v. United States, 580 U.S. 39 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that gifts of confidential information without any compensation to relatives for the purposes of insider trading are a violation of securities laws. The Court relied on its decision in Dirks v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 463 U.S. 646 (1983), which held that "that a tippee is exposed to liability for trading on inside information only if the tippee participates in a breach of the tipper's fiduciary duty."

Apple Inc. vs Samsung Inc., 580 U.S. 53, is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Inc. in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones since the early 2010s, and made about 40% of all smartphones sold worldwide as of 2024. In early 2011, Apple initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Samsung, who typically responded with countersuits. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the phone wars: the colloquial term for extensive litigation and fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.

Shaw v. United States, 580 U.S. 63 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified the application of the federal bank fraud statute to cases where a defendant intends to only defraud a customer of the bank, rather than the bank itself.

White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an officer did not violate clearly established law and was entitled to qualified immunity when he arrived late at an ongoing police action, saw shots being fired by people inside a house surrounded by other officers, and fatally shot an armed occupant of the house without first giving a warning.

Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corp., 580 U.S. 82 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that clarified whether Fannie Mae can be sued in state courts. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that plaintiffs may file lawsuits against Fannie Mae in any state or federal court that is "already endowed with subject-matter jurisdiction over the suit."

Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100 (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the death sentence of the defendant Duane Buck after the defendant's attorney introduced evidence that suggested the defendant would be more likely to commit violent acts in the future because he was black.

Life Technologies Corp. v. Promega Corp., 580 U.S. 140 (2017), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court clarified the application of the Patent Act of 1952 to the sale of components of patented inventions in foreign markets. In an opinion written by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court held that the sale of a "single component" in a foreign market "does not constitute a substantial portion of the components that can give rise to liability under [the Patent Act of 1952]." Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which he was joined Justice Clarence Thomas. Chief Justice John Roberts took no part in the decision of the case.

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).

After the 2010 census, the Virginia State Legislature drew new lines for 12 state legislative districts, with a goal of ensuring that each district would have a black voting-age population (BVAP) of… Held: The District Court employed an incorrect legal standard in determining that race did not predominate in 11 of the 12 districts. Pp. 187–193.

A Colorado jury convicted petitioner Peña-Rodriguez of harassment and unlawful sexual contact. Held: Where a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defend­ ant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror’s statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial…

constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321 , 337, 26 S.Ct. 282 , 50 L.Ed. 499 . Beckles protests that the commentary is "inconsistent with" § 4B1.2(a), and thus inoperative, once the residual clause is stricken from the Guideline as impermissibly vague. Brief for Petitioner 49; see Stinson, 508 U.S., at 38 , 113 S.Ct. 1913 .

Held: The Nevada Supreme Court applied the wrong legal standard. Re- cusal is required when, objectively speaking, “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitu- tionally tolerable.” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U. S. 35, 47. This Court's decision in Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U. S. 899, is not to the contrary. Certiorari granted; 132 Nev. 95, 368 P. 3d 729, vacated and remanded.

Article II of the Constitution requires that the President obtain “the Ad- vice and Consent of the Senate” before appointing “Offcers of the… Held: Subsection (b)(1) of the FVRA prevents a person who has been nominated to fll a vacant PAS offce from performing the duties of that offce in an acting capacity. The prohibition applies to anyone perform- ing acting service under the FVRA. It is not limited to frst assistants performing acting service under subsection (a)(1).

In 2003, petitioners (collectively, SCA) notified respondents (collective- ly, First Quality) that their adult incontinence products infringed an SCA patent. Held: Laches cannot be invoked as a defense against a claim for dam- ages brought within §286’s 6-year limitations period. Pp. 3–16. (a) Petrella’s holding rested on both separation-of-powers principles and the traditional role of laches in equity.

During a traffc stop, police offcers in Joliet, Illinois, searched petitioner Elijah Manuel and found a vitamin bottle containing pills. Held: Manuel may challenge his pretrial detention on Fourth Amendment grounds. This conclusion follows from the Court's settled precedent.

Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE–1, 580 U.S. 386 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), required schools to provide students an education that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances." In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 580 U.S. 405 (2017), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided under what circumstances aesthetic elements of "useful articles" can be restricted by copyright law. The Court created a two-prong "separability" test, granting copyrightability based on separate identification and independent existence; the aesthetic elements must be identifiable as art if mentally separated from the article's practical use, and must qualify as copyrightable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works if expressed in any medium. The case was a dispute between two clothing manufacturers, Star Athletica and Varsity Brands.

There are three possible conclusions to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. First, debtor and creditors may negotiate a plan to govern the distribution of the estate's value. See, e. g., 11 U. S. Held: Petitioners have Article III standing. Respondents argue that petitioners have not “suffered an injury in fact,” or at least one “likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision,” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.