Volume 591 — United States Reports

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.

Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 591 U.S. 71 (2020), is a US Supreme Court case related to disgorgement awards sought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for fraudulent activities. The Court ruled in an 8–1 decision that such disgorgement awards can be awarded by the courts as equitable relief under the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5), but they are limited to the wrongdoer's net profits and must be awarded for victims.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U.S. 197 (2020) was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which held that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), with a single director who could only be removed from office "for cause", violated the separation of powers principle in the U.S. Constitution. Handed down on June 29, 2020, the Court's 5–4 decision created a new test to determine when Congress may limit the power of the President of the United States to remove an officer of the United States from office. The Court recognized that the President may generally remove officers at will. However, the Court stated that there were two exceptions to this rule.

court must give due regard to the trial court's opportunity to judge the witnesses' credibility.” Fed. Rule. Civ. Proc. 52(a)(6). When the district court is “sitting without a jury,” the appellate court “is not to decide factual issues de novo,” Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 573.

Held: that speech is attributed to respondents for First Amendment purposes. AOSI I, 570 U. S., at 219. So when the Govern- ment demands as a condition of federal funding that their clearly identifed affliate “espouse a specifc belief as its own,” respondents may express a contrary view through some other corporate channel only on pain of appearing hyp- ocritical.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. 464 (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that a state-based scholarship program that provides public funds to allow students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.

When Americans cast ballots for presidential candidates, their votes actu- ally go toward selecting members of the Electoral College, whom each State appoints based on the popular returns. Held: A State may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee—and the state voters' choice—for President. Pp. 587–597.

Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case on the issue of "faithless electors" in the Electoral College stemming from the 2016 United States presidential election. The Court ruled unanimously, by a vote of 9–0, that states have the ability to enforce an elector's pledge in presidential elections. Chiafalo deals with electors who received US$1,000 fines for not voting for the nominees of their party in the state of Washington. The case was originally consolidated with Colorado Department of State v. Baca, 591 U.S.

(b) The Government's arguments for deeming the statute content- neutral are unpersuasive. First, § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii) does not draw dis- tinctions based on speakers, and even if it did, that would not “automati- cally render the distinction content neutral.” Reed, 576 U. S., at 170.

partments' solution. However, the argument that the Departments could not consider RFRA at all is without merit. It is clear from the face of the statute that the contraceptive mandate is capable of violating RFRA. The ACA does not explicitly exempt RFRA, and the regula- tions implementing the contraceptive mandate qualify as “Federal law” or “the implementation of [Federal] law” under RFRA. § 2000bb–3(a).

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. 732 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the ministerial exception of federal employment discrimination laws. The case extends from the Supreme Court's prior decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which created the ministerial exception based on the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the United States Constitution, asserting that federal discrimination laws cannot be applied to leaders of religious organizations. The case, along with the consolidated St. James School v.

Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. 786 (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case arising from a subpoena issued in August 2019 by Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. against Mazars, then-President Donald Trump's accounting firm, for Trump's tax records and related documents, as part of his ongoing investigation into the Stormy Daniels scandal. Trump commenced legal proceedings to prevent their release.

Bank, the District Court denied a preliminary injunction and the Second Circuit affrmed in substantial part, holding that the Intelligence Com- mittee properly issued its subpoena to Deutsche Bank as… Held: The courts below did not take adequate account of the signifcant separation of powers concerns implicated by congressional subpoenas for the President's information. Pp. 858–871.

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. 894 (2020), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that the domain reserved for the Muscogee Nation by Congress in the 19th century has never been disestablished and constitutes Indian country for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, meaning that the state of Oklahoma has no right to prosecute American Indians for crimes allegedly committed therein. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals applied the McGirt rationale to rule nine other Indigenous nations had not been disestablished. As a result, almost the entirety of the eastern half of what is now the state of Oklahoma remains Indian country, meaning that criminal prosecutions of Native Americans for offenses therein falls outside the jurisdiction of Oklahoma’s court system.

Sharp v. Murphy, 591 U.S. 977 (2020), was a Supreme Court of the United States case of whether Congress disestablished the Muscogee (Creek) Nation reservation. After holding the case from the 2018 term, the case was decided on July 9, 2020, in a per curiam decision following McGirt v. Oklahoma that, for the purposes of the Major Crimes Act, the reservations were never disestablished and remain Indian country.