Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that established the principle of judicial review, meaning that American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law. It established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals. It also helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government.
Horace Gray was an American jurist who served on the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, and then on the United States Supreme Court, where he frequently interpreted the Constitution in ways that increased the powers of Congress. Noted for possessing a sharp mind and an enthusiasm for legal research, he was also a staunch supporter of the authority of precedent throughout his career, and would write landmark opinions in cases such as Elk v. Wilkins and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held 6—3 that, while the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the states, the exclusionary rule was not a necessary ingredient of the Fourth Amendment's right against warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures. In Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914), the Court held that as a matter of judicial implication the exclusionary rule was enforceable in federal courts but not derived from the explicit requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The Wolf Court decided not to incorporate the exclusionary rule as part of the Fourteenth Amendment in large part because the states which had rejected the Weeks Doctrine had not left the right to privacy without other means of protection. However, because most of the states' rules proved to be ineffective in deterrence, the Court overruled Wolf in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). That landmark case made history as the exclusionary rule enforceable against the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the same extent that it applied against the federal government.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that the United States does not have a general federal common law and that U.S. federal courts must apply state law, not federal law, to lawsuits between parties from different states that do not involve federal questions. In reaching this holding, the Court overturned almost a century of federal civil procedure case law, and established the foundation of the modern law of diversity jurisdiction.
The Federal Appendix was a case law reporter published by West Publishing from 2001 to 2021. It collected judicial opinions of the United States courts of appeals that were not expressly selected or designated for publication. Such "unpublished" cases are ostensibly without value as precedent. However, the Supreme Court made a change to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure in 2006. Now, Rule 32.1 says that federal circuit courts are not allowed to prohibit the citation of unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007. Nevertheless, principles articulated in an opinion designated as "not for publication" are treated by the judges of that circuit as not necessarily binding on future panels hearing similar cases, nor on the district judges within the circuit.
Ariad Pharmaceuticals et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 598 F.3d 1336, is a United States court case regarding accusations of infringement by Eli Lilly on U.S. patent 6,410,516 held by ARIAD Pharmaceuticals. The Federal Circuit ruled en banc to invalidate the patent for a lack of sufficient description of the invention. Amici briefing before the en banc panel was intensive, with 26 separate briefs filed, and the final decision has been heavily discussed by legal commentators. Its ultimate impact on biotechnology patents remains to be determined.
Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239 (2012), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether the U.S. Federal Communications Commission's scheme for regulating speech is unconstitutionally vague. The Supreme Court excused the broadcasters from paying fines levied for what the FCC had determined indecency, in a majority opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Supreme Court had previously issued an opinion in the case in 2009 addressing the nature of the fine itself, without addressing the restriction on indecent speech.
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters" are covered by the Clean Water Act.
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, 598 U.S. 39 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, regardless of income level, workers are not considered salaried unless the conditions set out in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 are met.
Delaware v. Pennsylvania, 598 U.S. 115 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case related to unclaimed money and check escheatment. This case was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's first majority opinion on the Supreme Court. It was also the first case the Supreme Court had taken on unclaimed property in over 30 years.
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc., 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that nothing in the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act categorically nullified any sovereign immunity the Board enjoyed from legal claims. The Court assumed without deciding that Puerto Rico was immune from suit in United States district court, and that the Board had access to that immunity.
Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when the Internal Revenue Service issues a summons in aid of collecting a tax liability, the exception to the notice requirement in 26 U.S.C. § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) applies even if the delinquent taxpayer has no legal interest in the accounts or records summoned.
United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc., 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the False Claims Act's scienter element, which requires a defendant to "knowingly" give a "false" claim to the government, refers to a defendant's knowledge and subjective beliefs. It does not refer to what an objectively reasonable person may have known or believed.
Ohio Adjutant General's Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Federal Labor Relations Authority had jurisdiction over a state National Guard labor dispute because a state National Guard acts as a federal agency for the purpose of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their civilian role.
Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that to state a claim under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, a plaintiff must allege the purchase of "such security" issued pursuant to a materially misleading registration statement.
Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a party may not appeal a denial of summary judgment after a district court has conducted a full trial on the merits.
Calcutt v. FDIC, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an administrative agency's discretionary order may be upheld in court only on the same basis articulated in the order by the agency itself.
Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the requirement that a noncitizen facing a removal order must exhaust all administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of the removal order is not jurisdictional. In other words, the exhaustion requirement does not limit courts' authority to hear the noncitizen's case, and courts cannot unilaterally refuse to hear a case where the requirement has not been satisfied. Further, the court clarified that a noncitizen need not request discretionary forms of administrative review, like reconsideration of an unfavorable Board of Immigration Appeals determination, in order to satisfy the exhaustion requirement.
