Volume 584 — United States Reports

Between 2004 and 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intermit- tently investigated petitioner Marinello’s tax activities. Held: To convict a defendant under the Omnibus Clause, the Govern- ment must prove the defendant was aware of a pending tax-related proceeding, such as a particular investigation or audit, or could rea- sonably foresee that such a proceeding would commence. Pp. 3–11.

Petitioner Ayestas was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in a Texas state court. Held: it was barred by procedural default. That decision was vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U. S. 1—where this Court held that an Ari- zona prisoner seeking federal habeas relief could overcome the proce- dural default of a trial-level ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim by showing that the…

Kisela v. Hughes, 584 U.S. 100 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity after shooting a person less than one minute into their interaction. Forgoing briefing and oral argument, the Supreme Court issued a summary reversal with a grant, vacate, remand order and an unsigned, per curiam opinion.

Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a federal court sitting in a habeas corpus proceeding should "look through" an unexplained, summary ruling to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning. The State may rebut the presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. 148 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. 241 (2018), was a case from the United States Supreme Court which addressed the issue of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank facilitated terrorist attacks by transferring funds to terrorist groups in the Middle East, some of which passed through Arab Bank's offices in New York City.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. 325 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for challenging the validity of patents, rather than a jury trial, is constitutional and did not violate either Article III of the Constitution nor the Seventh Amendment.

Inter partes review allows private parties to challenge previously is- sued patent claims in an adversarial process before the Patent Office. Held: When the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review, it must decide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has chal- lenged. The plain text of §318(a) resolves this case. Its directive is both mandatory and comprehensive.

Byrd v. United States, 584 U.S. 395 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case that held that drivers of rental cars have rights protecting them from unconstitutional searches by police, even if the drivers are not listed on the rental agreement.

McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to decide that the objective of his defense is to maintain innocence at all costs, even when counsel believes that admitting guilt offers the defendant the best chance to avoid the death penalty.

Under federal law, a judge normally may issue a wiretap order permit- ting the interception of communications only “within the… Held: Because the Orders were not lacking any information that the statute required them to include and would have been sufficient ab- sent the challenged language authorizing interception outside the —————— * Together with Dahda v. United States (see this Court’s Rule 12.4), also on certiorari to the same court. 2 DAHDA v. UNITED STATES…

In each of these cases, an employer and employee entered into a con- tract providing for individualized arbitration proceedings to resolve employment disputes between the parties. Held: Congress has instructed in the Arbitration Act that arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings must be en- forced, and neither the Arbitration Act’s saving clause nor the NLRA suggests otherwise.

The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe purchased a roughly 40-acre plot of land and then commissioned a boundary survey. Held: Yakima addressed not the scope of tribal sovereign immunity, but a question of statutory interpretation of the Indian General Allot- ment Act of 1887.

Petitioner Sergio Fernando Lagos was convicted of using a company he controlled to defraud a lender of tens of millions of dollars. Held: The words “investigation” and “proceedings” in subsection (b)(4) of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act are limited to government investigations and criminal proceedings and do not include private investigations and civil or bankruptcy proceedings.

Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027, 584 U.S. 586 (2018), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States involving search and seizure. At issue was whether the Fourth Amendment's motor vehicle exception permits a police officer uninvited and without a warrant to enter private property, approach a house, and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house that is otherwise visible from off the property. In an 8–1 judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that the automobile exception does not apply to vehicles parked within the home or the curtilage of a private homeowner.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that addressed whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs. The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs.

Hughes v. United States, 584 U.S. 675 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) is "based on" the defendant's Guidelines range so long as that range was part of the framework the district court relied on in imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement.

Respondent R. Scott Appling fell behind on his bills owed to petitioner law firm Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP, which threatened to with- draw representation and place a lien on its work product if… Held: §523(a)(2)(B) did not bar him from dis- 2 LAMAR, ARCHER & COFRIN, LLP v. APPLING Syllabus charging his debt to Lamar. Held: A statement about a single asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” under §523(a)(2). Pp. 4–15.

American Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah, 414 U. S. 538 , established that the timely filing of a class action tolls the applicable statute of limita- tions for all persons encompassed by the class… Held: Upon denial of class certification, a putative class member may not, in lieu of promptly joining an existing suit or promptly filing an individual action, commence a class action anew beyond the time al- lowed by the applicable statute of limitations. Pp. 5–15.

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) addresses the removal of ineligible voters from state voting rolls, 52 U. S. C. §20501 (b), includ- ing those who are ineligible “by reason of” a change in… Held: The process that Ohio uses to remove voters on change-of- residence grounds does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause or any other part of the NVRA. Pp. 8–21. (a) Ohio’s law does not violate the Failure-to-Vote Clause. Pp. 8– 16.

The legal system has long used default rules to resolve estate litigation in a way that conforms to decedents’ presumed intent. Held: The retroactive application of Minnesota’s statute does not vio- late the Contracts Clause. That Clause restricts the power of States to disrupt contractual arrangements, but it does not prohibit all laws affecting pre-existing contracts, see El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U. S. 497 , 506–507.

Washington v. United States, 584 U.S. 837 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding Native American fishing rights in the U.S. state of Washington. In the case, the court deadlocked 4-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy recusing himself due to his prior involvement in the case as a judge on the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The deadlock left standing a lower court ruling that the State of Washington must redesign and rebuild road culverts to allow salmon to swim upstream, to uphold Native American treaty rights to fish.