The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section of the United States Code that reads: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States." Since 1980, courts have interpreted this statute to allow foreign citizens to seek remedies in U.S. courts for human-rights violations for conduct committed outside the United States.
Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola, 578 F.3d 1252, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a case filed by Colombian trade union Sinaltrainal against Coca-Cola in a Miami district court, demanding monetary compensation of $500 million under the Alien Tort Claims Act for the deaths of three workers in Colombia.
United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).
Sprint Communications, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. ___ (2013), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which a unanimous Court held that federal court abstention under the Younger v. Harris doctrine is not in order simply because a pending state-court proceeding involves the same subject matter. The case involved a dispute between Sprint Corporation and Windstream Communications.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 574 U.S. ___ (2015), is a landmark patent Supreme Court case disputing over the Copaxone patent. The Court held that, when reviewing a district court’s resolution of subsidiary factual matters made in the course of its construction of a patent claim, the Federal Circuit must apply a “clear error,” not a de novo, standard of review.
Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a criminal case that came before the Supreme Court of the United States, which considered whether Puerto Rico and the federal government of the United States are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the US Constitution.
Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), is a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.
Nichols v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) does not require an individual to update his registration after departing a state.
Welch v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the decision in Johnson v. United States announced a substantive rule change and is therefore retroactive.
Heffernan v. City of Paterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in 2016 concerning the First Amendment rights of public employees. By a 6–2 margin, the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights might be violated when an employer, believing that the employee was engaging in what would be protected speech, disciplines them because of that belief, even if the employee did not exercise such a constitutional right.
Foster v. Chatman, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the state law doctrine of res judicata does not preclude a Batson challenge against peremptory challenges if new evidence has emerged. The Court held the state courts' Batson analysis was subject to federal jurisdiction because "[w]hen application of a state law bar 'depends on a federal constitutional ruling, the state-law prong of the court’s holding is not independent of federal law, and our jurisdiction is not precluded,'" under Ake v. Oklahoma.
Sheriff v. Gillie, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the use of the Ohio Attorney General's letterhead, as its direction, was permissible and not a false, deceptive, or misleading representation under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an "aggravated felony" under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) encompasses every conviction of section 150.10 of the New York Penal Law, regardless if the state offense is missing the interstate or foreign commerce element.
Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when filing a workplace discrimination complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the filing period begins only after an employee resigns. The filing period begins at the time that the employee gives notice of resignation, not the effective date of resignation.
Ross v. Blake, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that "the implied false certification theory can be a basis for False Claims Act liability when a defendant submitting a claim makes specific representations about the goods or services provided, but fails to disclose noncompliance with material statutory, regulatory, or contractual requirements that make those representations misleading with respect to those goods or services."
Taylor v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that in a federal criminal prosecution under the Hobbs Act, the government is not required to prove an interstate commerce element beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court relied on the decision in Gonzales v. Raich which held that Congress has the authority to regulate the marijuana market given that even local activities can have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce.
McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the appeal of former Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell's conviction under the Hobbs Act. At issue on appeal was whether the definition of "official act" within the federal bribery statutes encompassed the actions for which McDonnell had been convicted, and whether the jury had been properly instructed on this definition at trial.
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case before the United States Supreme Court concerning the scope of the Judiciary Act of 1789. At issue was whether the Judiciary Act of 1789, now known as the Alien Tort Statute, allows foreign corporations to be named as defendants. The Alien Tort Statute gives federal courts jurisdiction over civil suits brought by foreign nationals “for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of the nations or a treaty of the United States.” In an opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy, The Supreme Court held 5-4 that foreign corporations cannot be sued under the Alien Tort Statute.
