Volume 587 — United States Reports

Rule 4. The natural reading of § 1608(a)(3) also avoids the potential international implications arising from the State Department's position that the Convention's principle of inviolability precludes serving a for- eign state by mailing process to the foreign state's embassy in the United States. Pp. 15–17. (d) Respondents' remaining arguments are unavailing.

craft on his accustomed route. The District Court and the Ninth Cir- cuit denied him relief, interpreting Section 103(c) to limit only the Serv- ice's authority to impose Alaska-specifc regulations… Held: The Nation River is not public land for purposes of ANILCA. “[P]ublic land” under ANILCA means (almost all) “lands, waters, and interests therein” the “title to which is in the United States.” 16 U. S. C. § 3102(1)–(3).

Petitioner Michael Biestek, a former construction worker, applied for so- cial security disability benefts, claiming he could no longer… Held: A vocational expert's refusal to provide private market-survey data upon the applicant's request does not categorically preclude the testi- mony from counting as “substantial evidence.” Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla,” and means only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support…

Petitioner Michael Biestek, a former construction worker, applied for social security disability benefits, claiming he could no longer work due… Held: A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence.” Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla,” and means only “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 2 BIESTEK v.…

Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. 119 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the standards for challenging methods of capital punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that when a convict sentenced to death challenges the state's method of execution due to claims of excessive pain, the convict must show that other alternative methods of execution exist and clearly demonstrate they would cause less pain than the state-determined one. The Court's opinion emphasized the precedential force of its prior decisions in Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross.

In 2016, a hacker tricked an employee of petitioner Lamps Plus, Inc., into disclosing tax information of about 1,300 company employees. Held: This Court has jurisdiction. An order that both compels arbitra- tion and dismisses the underlying claims qualifies as “a final decision with respect to an arbitration” within the meaning of 9 U. S. C. §16 (a)(3), the jurisdictional provision on which Lamps Plus relies.

Respondent Hyatt sued petitioner Franchise Tax Board of California (Board) in Nevada state court for alleged torts committed during a tax… Held: Nevada v. Hall is overruled; States retain their sovereign immunity from private suits brought in courts of other States. Pp. 236–249. (a) The Hall majority held that nothing “implicit in the Constitution” requires States to adhere to the sovereign immunity that prevailed at the time of the founding. 440 U. S., at 417–418, 424–427.

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (short: Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt or Hyatt III), 587 U.S. 230 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private suits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. This was the third time that the litigants had presented their case to the Court, as the Court had already ruled on the issue in 2003 and 2016. The ruling ended a long tax dispute between Gilbert Hyatt and California regarding alleged tax fraud by Hyatt.

Held: 1. The limitations period in § 3731(b)(2) applies in a relator-initiated suit in which the Government has declined to intervene. Held: The limitations period in § 3731(b)(2) applies in a relator-initiated suit in which the Government has declined to intervene.

Petitioner Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. manufactures Fosamax, a drug that treats and prevents osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Held: “Clear evidence” is evidence that shows the court that the drug manufacturer fully informed the FDA of the justifcations for the warn- ing required by state law and that the FDA, in turn, informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug's label to include that warning. Pp. 310–316.

Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. And pre-emption takes place “ `only when and if [the agency] is acting within the scope of its congressionally delegated authority.' ” New York v. FERC, 535 U. S. 1, 18 (some alterations omit- ted). Pp. 315–316. 2. The question of agency disapproval is primarily one of law for a judge to decide. The question often involves the use of legal skills to determine whether agency disapproval fts facts that are not in dispute.

Herrera v. Wyoming, No. 17-532, 587 U.S. 329 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Wyoming's statehood did not void the Crow Tribe's right to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States" under an 1868 treaty, and that the Bighorn National Forest did not automatically become "occupied" when the forest was created.

tion in bankruptcy. In preserving a counterparty's rights, Section 365 refects the general bankruptcy rule that the estate cannot possess any- thing more than the debtor did outside bankruptcy. See Board of Trade of Chicago v. Johnson, 264 U. S. 1, 15.

Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019), was a civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that probable cause should generally defeat a retaliatory arrest claim brought under the First Amendment, unless officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest.

The Social Security Act permits judicial review of “any fnal decision . . . after a hearing” by the Social Security Administration (SSA). 42 U. S. C. § 405(g). Held: An Appeals Council dismissal on timeliness grounds after a claimant has had an ALJ hearing on the merits qualifes as a “fnal decision . . . made after a hearing” for purposes of allowing judicial review under § 405(g). Pp. 478–489. (a) The statute's text supports this reading.

dents do not support that reading; the Appeals Council's dismissal is not merely collateral but an end to a proceeding in which a substantial fac- tual record has already been developed and on which considerable re- sources have already been expended; and Smith's case is distinct from Sanders.

Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., No. 18-483, 587 U.S. 490 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the constitutionality of a 2016 anti-abortion law passed in the state of Indiana. Indiana's law sought to ban abortions performed solely on the basis of the fetus' gender, race, ethnicity, or disabilities. Lower courts had blocked enforcement of the law for violating a woman's right to abortion under privacy concerns within the Fourteenth Amendment, as previously found in the landmark cases Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The lower courts also blocked enforcement of another portion of the law that required the disposal of aborted fetuses through burial or cremation.

Petitioner Mont was released from federal prison in 2012 and began a 5-year term of supervised release that was scheduled to end on March 6, 2017. Held: Pretrial detention later credited as time served for a new convic- tion is “imprison[ment] in connection with a conviction” and thus tolls the supervised-release term under §3624(e), even if the court must make the tolling calculation after learning whether the time will be credited. Pp. 6–13.

Petitioner Bradley Taggart formerly owned an interest in an Oregon com- pany. Held: A court may hold a creditor in civil contempt for violating a dis- charge order if there is no fair ground of doubt as to whether the order barred the creditor's conduct. Pp. 559–565.

Artifcial Stone Paving Co. v. Molitor, 113 U. S. 609, 618. This stand- ard is generally an objective one. Held: “even if the creditor's belief is unreasonable.” Ibid. We conclude that neither a standard akin to strict liability nor a purely subjective standard is appropriate.

The Medicare program offers additional payments to institutions that serve a “disproportionate number” of low-income patients. 42 U. S. C. §§1395ww(d)(5)(F)(i)(I). Held: Because the government has not identified a lawful excuse for neglecting its statutory notice-and-comment obligations, its policy must be vacated. Pp. 5–17.

the enclave. See Sadrakula, supra, at 100. As originally enacted, the OCSLA both treated the OCS as a federal enclave and adopted only the “applicable and not inconsistent” laws of the adjacent State in effect as of the Act's effective date. This suggests that, like the general enclave rule, the OCSLA sought to make all OCS law federal yet also “provide a suffciently detailed legal framework to govern life” on the OCS. Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue, 488 U. S. 19, 27.

Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 275, as well as an express directive from Con- gress in the Dictionary Act, 1 U. S. C. § 1. The Dictionary Act does not include the Federal Government among the persons listed in the defni- tion of “person” that courts use “[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise,” § 1.

When petitioner Jamar Quarles pled guilty to being a felon in posses- sion of a firearm in violation of 18 U. S. C. §922 (g)(1), he also ap- peared to qualify for enhanced sentencing under the Armed… Held: Generic remaining-in burglary occurs under §924(e) when the defendant forms the intent to commit a crime at any time while un- lawfully remaining in a building or structure.

Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 587 U.S. 658 (2019), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court on March 18, 2019, in which the Virginia House of Delegates appealed against the decision in 2018 by the district court that 11 of Virginia's voting districts were racially gerrymandered, and thus unconstitutional. The Court held the "Virginia House of Delegates lacks standing to file this appeal, either representing the state's interests or in its own right." In other words, the court upheld the decision made by a federal district court ruling in June 2018 that 11 state legislative districts were an illegal racial gerrymander. This was following a previous (2017) case, Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections.

Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646, 587 U.S. 678 (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case about the separate sovereignty exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime as the governments are "separate sovereigns." Terance Martez Gamble was prosecuted under both state and then federal laws for possessing a gun while being a felon. His argument that doing so was double jeopardy was found unpersuasive due to the separate sovereignty exception. In June 2019, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decision 7–2, with the majority opinion stating that there was not sufficient cause for overturning the dual sovereignty doctrine.

the States and grants the NRC regulatory authority only after uranium is removed from the earth. It is also unclear whether laws like Virgin- ia's might have a meaningful impact on the development of nuclear power in this country given the other available foreign and domestic sources of uranium. Pp. 777–780.

Held: the fact that the government licenses, contracts with, or grants a monopoly to a private entity does not convert the private entity into a state actor-unless the private entity is performing a traditional, exclusive public function.