At issue in Adame v. Lynch is whether Courts of Appeal have jurisdiction to review mixed questions of law and fact when considering a noncitizen’s appeal of the refusal by a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to cancel a removal order.
You are here
In Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, the Supreme Court is considering, among other things, whether a defendant’s offer of judgment for “complete relief” to the lead plaintiff in a class action that has not yet been certified moots the plaintiff’s class claims even if the plaintiff has rejected the defendant’s offer.
Hotze v. Burwell involves a challenge to the individual and employer mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The plaintiffs in Hotze filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas arguing that these provisions violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause, which provides that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills.” According to the plaintiffs, the ACA is a revenue-raising bill that did not originate in the House of Representatives.
On July 3, 2014, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1272, placing an advisory question (known as Proposition 49) on the November 2014 ballot soliciting the views of California voters on whether to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Shortly thereafter, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (“HJTA”) sought to remove Proposition 49 from the ballot, arguing that the Legislature had exceeded its authority in placing it there.
In Hurst v. Florida, the Supreme Court is considering whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth or Eighth Amendments in light of the Court’s 2002 decision in Ring v. Arizona.
At issue in Montgomery v. Louisiana is whether the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in Miller v. Alabama, which held that sentencing schemes that mandate life without the possibility of parole for juveniles are unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment, created a new substantive rule that applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.
Alfredo Prieto, the petitioner in Prieto v. Clarke, has asked the Supreme Court to review this case and hold that he is entitled to due process before being placed in long-term solitary confinement.