Sharing the Wealth: Student-Athletes After NCAA v. AlstonBy Margo Lynn HablutzelIntellectual Property, December 2021For decades, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) had a simple rule: Student-athletes could not benefit financially from their skills on the playing field. Beginning with the “Sanity Code” in 1948 and continuing with some evolutions to 2021, the NCAA sought to limit the schools’ ability to offer financial incentives to preferred students. On June 21, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its unanimous decision in NCAA v. Alston, upholding injunctions based upon antitrust law which lifted limitations on certain payments by schools and conferences.
U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari on Illinois Oil & Gas CaseBy Craig R. HedinMineral Law, June 2021The U.S. Supreme Court recently denied a writ of certiorari in a case in which the validity of a regulatory takings claim by reason of the Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act was at issue.
Nonsignatory to International Arbitration Agreement May Be Allowed to Compel ArbitrationBy Kristen E. Hudson & Luis A. HilleInternational and Immigration Law, February 2021In GE Energy v. Outokumpu, the U.S. Court held that a nonsignatory to a written agreement containing an arbitration clause may avail itself of state law doctrines to compel arbitration where a signatory to the written agreement must rely on the terms of that agreement in asserting claims against the nonsignatory.
Supreme Court Immigration Docket 2020-2021By Prof. Cindy G. BuysInternational and Immigration Law, February 2021Summaries of major immigration law cases on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket for the 2020-21 term.
Nonsignatory to International Arbitration Agreement May Be Allowed to Compel ArbitrationBy Kristen E. Hudson & Luis A. HilleAlternative Dispute Resolution, January 2021In GE Energy v. Outokumpu, the U.S. Court held that a nonsignatory to a written agreement containing an arbitration clause may avail itself of state law doctrines to compel arbitration where a signatory to the written agreement must rely on the terms of that agreement in asserting claims against the nonsignatory.
Justice Ginsburg – Her Legacy and ImpactBy Natali P. ThomasLocal Government Law, December 2020A look at the life of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Justice Ginsburg – Her Legacy and ImpactBy Natali P. ThomasYoung Lawyers Division, November 2020A look at the life of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Bostock: The Textualism FightsBy Aaron B. MaduffFederal Civil Practice, September 2020On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held that sexual orientation discrimination in employment is prohibited by Title VII in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express, Inc., v. Zarda.
Free Speech and Soliciting Aliens to Violate Immigration Law: U.S. v. Sineneng SmithBy Patrick M. KinnallyInternational and Immigration Law, September 2020A summary of U.S. v. Sineneng Smith, which looks at whether a federal law criminalizing the act of encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain is unconstitutional on its face.
Let’s Talk About ‘Sex’: SCOTUS Delivers Title VII Landmark RulingBy Azar Alexander & Joy AndersonBench and Bar, July 2020On June 15, the United State Supreme Court directly and unequivocally answered the question of whether an employer can terminate an employee for their sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
U.S. Supreme Court addresses state income taxation of trusts in KaestnerBy Oliver R. MerrillTrusts and Estates, July 2019On June 21, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust, which considered whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from taxing trusts based on trust beneficiaries’ in-state residency.
U.S. Supreme Court holds class arbitration cannot be ordered absent an express agreementBy Jay SchleppenbachAlternative Dispute Resolution, July 2019The U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela that class arbitration cannot be compelled where the arbitration agreement is not silent but rather ambiguous about the availability of such arbitration.
The census citizenship questionBy Bhavani RaveendranHuman and Civil Rights, June 2019In April, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 census.
Timbs v. Indiana: U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously it’s unconstitutional for states to impose excessive finesBy Ronald S. LangackerHuman and Civil Rights, March 2019Civil forfeiture clauses are common in many states, which sometimes rely on them as a revenue stream for local police departments. However, this creates an incentive for law enforcement to selectively make arrests based upon the potential funding. Timbs v. Indiana puts an effective end to this practice.
SCOTUS overrules Abood in Janus v. AFSCMEBy Carlos S. ArévaloLocal Government Law, September 2018In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which stemmed from an appeal over the dismissal of a complaint that sought to invalidate agency fees and to reverse the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
SCOTUS overrules Abood in Janus v. AFSCMEBy Carlos S. ArévaloLabor and Employment Law, September 2018In June, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Janus v. AFSCME, which stemmed from an appeal over the dismissal of a complaint that sought to invalidate agency fees and to reverse the Supreme Court’s 1977 decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.
Should you seek admission to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States of America?By Khara ColemanRacial and Ethnic Minorities and the Law, June 2017There is no age requirement—admission is available to any lawyer admitted to practice in one of the United States, young or old. Each applicant must identify two sponsors who have already been admitted to the SCOTUS bar.
Our flag was still thereBy Daniel A. CotterBench and Bar, August 2013The October 2012 Term of the United States Supreme Court has just wrapped up—A brief summary of the major decisions of the nation's highest Court.
Should the Supreme Court be televised?By Meghan SteinbeissAlternative Dispute Resolution, May 2012It is not probable that we will ever see the full operations of the Supreme Court as the Justices hold the final vote in whether or not their activities will be televised.
Supreme Court grants arbitrators more powerBy Joshua BaileyAlternative Dispute Resolution, October 2010Since Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act states that such clauses are “valid, irrevocable, and enforceable” without mentioning the validity of the agreement as a whole, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a challenge to the whole agreement must be decided by the arbitrator.
Recent United States Supreme Court decisionsBy Mary Lee LeahyHuman and Civil Rights, February 2000I remember where I was--I was getting out of my car to go into the Illinois Supreme Court Library--when I heard on the radio that the court had decided Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996).
U.S. Supreme Court rules on new value (or does it?)By John C. MurrayCommercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy, December 1999In an 8-1 opinion issued on May 3, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association v. 203 N. LaSalle Street Partnership, ___U.S.___, 119 S.Ct. 1141 (1999), that old equity holders were disqualified from participating in a "new value" bankruptcy reorganization plan over the objection of a senior class of impaired creditors, where the opportunity to contribute new capital and receive ownership interests in the reorganized entity was given exclusively to old equity holders without consideration of alternatives.
From the United States Supreme CourtBy Donald C. HudsonCriminal Justice, November 1999Accused's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses was violated by admitting into evidence at his trial a non-testifying accomplice's confession that contained some statements against the accomplice's penal interest and others that inculpated the accused.
From the United States Supreme CourtBy Donald C. HudsonCriminal Justice, July 1999Police officers may search a passenger's personal belongings inside an automobile when they have probable cause to believe the automobile contains contraband.
