Volume 581 — United States Reports

Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court decision about the death penalty and intellectual disability. The court held that contemporary clinical standards determine what an intellectual disability is, and held that even milder forms of intellectual disability may bar a person from being sentenced to death due to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The case clarified two earlier cases, Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and Hall v. Florida (2014).

Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. 37 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that price controls, when used to prohibit the communication of prices of goods with regard to a surcharge, was a regulation of speech and required an analysis of the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.

Dean v. United States, 581 U.S. 62 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 924(c), which provides mandatory minimum sentences for the use of a firearm during certain crimes, does not prevent a sentencing court from considering a mandatory minimum imposed under that provision when calculating an appropriate sentence for the predicate offense.

McLane Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 581 U.S. 72 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a district court's decision whether to enforce or quash a subpoena issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, not de novo.

Coventry Health Care v. Nevils, 581 U.S. 87 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that federal laws governing federal employees' health insurance preempt state laws affecting contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptions.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 581 U.S. 101 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that when a court sanctions bad-faith conduct by ordering a litigant to pay the other side’s legal fees, the award is limited to the fees the innocent party incurred solely because of the bad-faith misconduct.

Manrique v. United States, 581 U.S. 116 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a defendant wishing to appeal an order imposing restitution in a deferred restitution case must file a notice of appeal from that order.

Nelson v. Colorado, 581 U.S. 128 (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. In a 7-1 decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that a state has no right to keep fines and other money collected based on an invalid conviction. Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring with the judgment, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion, and Justice Neil Gorsuch did not take part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Lewis v. Clarke, 581 U.S. 155 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in a suit against a tribal employee in his individual capacity, and an indemnification provision cannot extend tribal sovereign immunity to cases in which it would otherwise not apply. Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered the majority opinion. Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg each wrote concurring opinions that both said that tribal sovereign immunity does not apply in suits arising from commercial activity off of tribal territory. Justice Neil Gorsuch was not involved in the discussion or decision of this case.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) shields foreign states from suits in United States courts, 28 U. S. C. § 1604, with specifed excep- tions. Held: The nonfrivolous-argument standard is not consistent with the FSIA.

The city of Miami (City) fled suit against Bank of America and Wells Fargo (Banks), alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA or Act). Held: The City is an “aggrieved person” authorized to bring suit under the FHA. In addition to satisfying constitutional standing require- ments, see Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U. S. 330, 338, a plaintiff must show that the statute grants the plaintiff the cause of action he or she asserts.

Howell v. Howell, 581 U.S. 214 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a state court may not order a veteran to indemnify a divorced spouse for the loss in the divorced spouse's portion of the veteran's retirement pay caused by the veteran's waiver of retirement pay to receive service-related disability benefits.

Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. 224 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the filing of a bankruptcy proof of claim that is obviously time-barred is not a false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable debt-collection practice within the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Kindred Nursing Centers, L.P. v. Clark, 581 U.S. 246 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the FAA preempts any state rule that discriminates on its face against arbitration or that covertly accomplishes the same objective by disfavoring contracts that have the defining features of arbitration agreements.

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits.

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. 271 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Hague Service Convention permits service of judicial process abroad by mail, provided that the country in which the service takes place has not objected to service by mail, and service by mail is authorized in the country where the litigation is pending.

Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285 (2017), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled 5–3 that the North Carolina General Assembly used race too heavily in re-drawing two Congressional districts following the 2010 Census.

Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., 581 U.S. 360 (2017), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the exhaustion doctrine in patent law in which the Court held that after the sale of a patented item, the patent holder cannot sue for patent infringement relating to further use of that item, even when in violation of a contract with a customer or imported from outside the United States. The case concerned a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Lexmark against Impression Products, Inc., which bought used ink cartridges, refilled them, replaced a microchip on the cartridge to circumvent a digital rights management scheme, and then resold them.

Esquivel-Quintana v. Sessions, 581 U.S. 385 (2017), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 8–0 that in the context of statutory rape offenses that criminalize sexual intercourse based solely on the ages of the participants, the generic federal definition of "sexual abuse of a minor" requires the age of the victim to be less than 16. Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Tyrrell, 581 U.S. 402, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Montana courts lacked personal jurisdiction over a railroad that was not incorporated in Montana and did not have its principal place of business in Montana, even though the railroad had more than 2,000 miles of track and 2,000 employees within Montana. It was the first Supreme Court case argued before a Court that included newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department received word from a con- fdential informant that a potentially armed and dangerous parolee-at- large had been seen at a certain residence. Held: in the alternative, that basic notions of proximate cause would support liability even without the provocation rule. Held: The Fourth Amendment provides no basis for the Ninth Circuit's “provocation rule.” Pp. 426–432.

Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 U.S. 433 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a litigant seeking to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) must meet the requirements of Article III standing if the intervenor wishes to pursue relief not requested by a plaintiff.

Honeycutt v. United States, 581 U.S. 443 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that there is no joint and several liability for forfeitures in federal conspiracy judgments when a party did not personally benefit from the crime.

Kokesh v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 581 U.S. 455 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, because SEC disgorgement is a punitive measure rather than a compensatory one, any claim for disgorgement in an SEC enforcement action must be commenced within five years of the date the claim accrued.

Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, 581 U.S. 468 (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a plan maintained by a principal-purpose organization qualifies as a "church plan," regardless of who established it.

Held: The District Court failed to meaningfully weigh any equitable con- siderations.