Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership | This website contains attorney advertising.
December 12, 2017

Supreme Court Certiorari Grants: October 2017 Term

October 3, 2017

1. Freedom of Speech; Labor and Employment. Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, No. 16-1466.
May a government require its employees to pay agency fees to an exclusive representative for speaking and contracting with the government over policies that affect the employees’ profession? Should Abood v. Detroit Board of Education be overruled?

2. Fourth Amendment. Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027.
Under the “automobile exception” to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, may police enter residential property without a warrant, in order to search a vehicle on that property?

3. Fourth AmendmentByrd v. United States, No. 16-1371.
For Fourth-Amendment purposes, does a driver have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter’s permission to drive the car, but is not an authorized driver under the rental agreement?

4. Assistance of Counsel. McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255.              
Is it unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused’s guilt over the accused’s express objection?

5. Self-Incrimination. City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt, No. 16-1495.
Does the Fifth Amendment permit a defendant’s compelled statements to be used at a pretrial probable-cause hearing?

6.  Appellate Procedure. Rosales-Mireles v. United States, No. 16-9493.
For a Court of Appeals to reverse a plain error of law that the appellant did not object to in the trial court, must the error “shock the conscience?”

7.  Appellate Procedure; Federal Courts. Hall v. Hall, No. 16-1150.
When a district court consolidates cases outside the MDL context, and enters judgment in less than all the cases, are those judgments immediately appealable separate from the other cases?

8. Labor and Employment. Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 16-1362.
The Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from overtime-pay requirements any “salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles.” Does this exempt a car dealership’s “service advisors,” who sell service solutions to the dealership’s customers?

9. Military Justice; Appointments Clause. Dalmazzi v. United States, No. 16-961; Cox v. United States, No. 16-1017; Ortiz v. United States, No. 16-1423.

  • 10 U.S.C. 973(b) prohibits a military officer from holding a “civil office” that requires a presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. Does this prohibit simultaneous service as a presidentially-appointed judge on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review and as an appellate judge on a military service’s court of criminal appeals?
  • Are judges of the Court of Military Commission Review “principal officers” under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution? If so, does the Appointments Clause prevent “principal officers” from serving as inferior officers in a different capacity?
  • May a defendant in a military service’s court of criminal appeals challenge the qualifications of a judge based on events that occurred after the court’s decision on the merits, but before the defendant moved for reconsideration?
  • 28 U.S.C. sec. 1259 gives the U.S. Supreme Court certiorari jurisdiction over cases in which the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has granted a review. If the Armed Forces court initially grants review but later vacates the grant, does the Supreme Court still have jurisdiction to grant certiorari? 

October 11, 2017

1. Interstate Compacts; Interstate Water Rights. Texas v. New Mexico, No. 141.

  • Under what circumstances does the United States have a right of action under an interstate compact to which it is not a party?
  • In litigation between states over rights created by an interstate compact to water in an interstate stream, should the United States be allowed to intervene to assert water rights under other sources, such as federal reclamation law?


2. Interstate Water Rights. Florida v. Georgia, No. 142.

  • Once a state shows it has been injured by another state’s use of water from interstate streams, must it additionally prove by clear and convincing evidence that the judgment it seeks would redress the injury?
  • Can a downstream state obtain a judgment restricting an upstream state’s water use, when there “is no guarantee” the judgment would redress the downstream state’s injury because the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would have discretion to offset any additional flows by decreasing its releases from upstream storage reservoirs?


October 17, 2017

1. Search and Seizure. United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2.
When a U.S. email provider stores customers’ emails on servers in another country, does 18 U.S.C. § 2703 authorize the issuance of a warrant requiring the provider to produce those emails?


2. Antitrust. Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454
American Express contractually prohibits merchants from encouraging their customers to pay with other credit cards. The lower courts held that this reduces price competition among credit card companies for the fees they charge to merchants, but promotes their competition in offering benefits and service to cardholders. Credit cards thus are a “two-sided platform”—a product that facilitates transactions, so that sellers of the product compete in the markets for customers on both sides of those transactions. In a rule-of-reason antitrust suit against a seller of two-sided platforms, which party bears the burden of proof as to whether an anticompetitive effect in the market on one side of the facilitated transactions (here, merchant fees) is outweighed by any procompetitive effect the same conduct has on the other side (cardholder benefits)?

3. Search and Seizure. Dahda v. United States, No. 17-43.
When a wiretap order is facially invalid because it was issued in violation of a federal statute, is evidence from the wiretap still admissible if the violation did not implicate the “core concerns” of the violated statute? If so, is the statutory requirement that a court can only authorize wiretaps “within [its] territorial jurisdiction” a core concern of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510-2520?

4. Double Jeopardy. Currier v. Virginia, No. 16-1348
When a defendant consents to severing multiple criminal charges into sequential trials, does an acquittal in one of the earlier trials have issue-preclusive effect in the later trials?

November 14, 2017

1. Free Speech; Election Law. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435.
Is Minnesota’s ban on all political apparel at polling places facially overbroad under the First Amendment?

2. Free Speech; Abortion Rights. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140.
California’s Reproductive FACT Act requires licensed pregnancy-care providers to notify all clients about the state’s programs for free or low-cost access to contraception and abortion. Exemptions in the statute cause the disclosure requirement to apply mostly to providers that oppose abortion. The statute also requires unlicensed non-medical pregnancy centers to notify clients that they are not licensed. Do these disclosure requirements violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?

3. Free Speech; Search and Seizure. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, No. 17-21.
If there was probable cause to arrest a suspect, does that bar as a matter of law any claim that the arrest was retaliation for the suspect’s protected speech, in violation of the First Amendment?

December 05, 2017

1. State Sovereign Immunity; Public Utilities; Appellate Procedure. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District v. SolarCity Corp., No. 17-368.
Is a district court’s order denying state-action immunity immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine?

December 12, 2017

1. Election Law; First Amendment. Benisek v. Lamone, No. 17-333.

  1. To establish injury for purposes of challenging an alleged partisan gerrymander, must plaintiffs prove that the gerrymander will control the outcome of all elections to be held in the district?

  2. If plaintiffs make a prima facie showing that their electoral district was gerrymandered in retaliation for their support of one political party over another, does the burden shift to the defendant government to prove that the boundary change did not injure the plaintiffs?

  3. Did a 2011 electoral boundary change cause Democratic victories in Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District in 2012, 2014, and 2016?


2. Class Actions. China Agritech, Inc. v. Resh, No. 17-432.
When American Pipe class-action tolling allows a plaintiff to file suit outside the normal limitations period, may that suit take the form of a separate class action?

3. Federal Courts; Criminal Sentencing. Hughes v. United States, No. 17-155.

  1. When the Supreme Court decides a case without a majority opinion, and it is not logically possible to identify which Justices’ opinion supporting the Court’s judgment is based on the “narrowest grounds,” how should the Court’s holding be determined?

  2. If a defendant agrees to a specific sentence in a plea agreement, does he remain eligible for a reduction if there is a later, retroactive amendment to the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range?


4. Criminal Sentencing. Koons v. United States, No. 17-5716.
Where a statute mandates a minimum sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) allows a reduction below the minimum if the defendant substantially assisted the government. When the Sentencing Guidelines are changed retroactively, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) allows courts to reduce already-imposed sentences to which the changes apply. Does this allow reducing a sentence imposed pursuant to § 3553(e)?

5. Federal Courts; Criminal Procedure. United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 17-312.
May criminal defendants continue to challenge a pretrial physical-restraint requirement after their cases have passed that stage, on the ground that the same requirement is still being applied to other defendants?

6. Contracts Clause; Family Law; Insurance Benefits. Sveen v. Melin, No. 16-1432.
“Revocation upon divorce” statutes provide that, when a couple divorce, they automatically are no longer designated beneficiaries of each other’s insurance policies. If such a statute is applied to insurance-beneficiary designations that were made before the statute was enacted, does that violate the Contracts Clause of the federal Constitution?

7. Indian Law. Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, No. 17-387.
Does tribal sovereign immunity bar in rem suits against tribal property?

January 16, 2018

1. Redistricting. Abbott v. Perez, Nos. 17-586 & 17-626.
Do Texas’s Congressional districts treat racial minorities unconstitutionally? When the district court ordered the parties to appear at a hearing to redraw the districts unless the Governor called a special legislative session for that purpose, was that an appealable injunction?

2. Patent Law. WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., No. 16-1011.
When a defendant violates 35 U.S.C. § 271(f) by supplying components of a patented invention from the United States for combination outside the United States in an infringing manner, may the plaintiff recover lost profits that it would have earned outside of the United States if the infringement had not occurred?

3. Bankruptcy. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, No. 16-1215.
The Bankruptcy Code prohibits the discharge of a debt for assets the debtor obtained fraudulently, unless the fraud was “respecting the debtor’s ... financial condition.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Under what circumstances can a statement about a specific asset—for instance, a statement offered as evidence of the debtor’s ability to repay a debt—qualify for the “financial condition” exception?

4. Foreign Relations; Federal Courts. Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co., No. 16-1220.
When a federal court is determining foreign law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, and the foreign sovereign appears in court to offer an interpretation of its law, is the court bound to defer to that statement?

5. Criminal Restitution. Lagos v. United States, No. 16-1519.
For many crimes, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) requires a convicted defendant to pay back a victim’s “expenses incurred during participation in the investigation or prosecution of the offense.” Does that include a victim’s costs for internal investigations and other private expenses that came before the government began a criminal prosecution?

6. Appointments Clause; Securities Regulation. Lucia v. SEC, No. 17-130.
Are the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative law judges “officers of the United States” who must be appointed pursuant to the Constitution’s Appointments Clause?

7. Indian Law. Washington v. United States, No. 17-269.

  1. Federal treaties with Northwestern Indian tribes guarantee a “right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations .... in common with all citizens.” Does this promise that there will be enough fish to provide a moderate living to the tribes?
  2. When the federal government told Washington State to design its culverts a certain way, was it equitably barred from later claiming in court that the culvert design violated treaties with Indian tribes?
  3. Will replacing hundreds of culverts have enough of an impact on tribal fisheries to require Washington to spend several billion dollars to do so?


8. Immigration Law. Pereira v. Sessions, No. 17-459.
To be eligible for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, an alien must have been continuously present in the United States for a specified amount of time before receiving a “notice to appear [for immigration proceedings] under section 1229(a).” Section 1229(a) defines a “notice to appear” as specifying “the time and place at which the proceedings will be held.” Does a document entitled “notice to appear” stop the cancellation-of-removal-eligibility clock if it lacks this “time and place” information?

9. State Taxes; Interstate Commerce. South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., No. 17-494.
May a State require a retailer that is not physically present within its boundaries to collect sales tax on sales into the State? Should Quill Corp. v. North Dakota’s contrary holding be overturned?

10. Railroads. Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States, No. 17-530.
Whether stock that a railroad transfers to its employees is taxable “money remuneration” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 28 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1).

11. Criminal Sentencing. Chavez-Meza v. United States, No. 17-5639.
When a district court decides not to grant a request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (involving retroactive changes to the Sentencing Guidelines), must it provide some explanation for its decision when the reasons are not otherwise apparent from the record?

January 23, 2018

1. Immigration; Establishment Clause. Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965.

  1. Is the challenge to the Trump Administration’s suspension of entry by aliens from certain countries a justiciable case or controversy?
  2. Is the suspension a lawful exercise of the President’s authority to suspend entry of aliens?
  3. Was it overbroad for the lower courts to issue a global injunction against the suspension?
  4. Does the suspension violate the Establishment Clause?


2. Endangered Species. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Nos. 17-71 & 17-74.

  1. Whether the Endangered Species Act allows agencies to designate private land as “critical habitat” for an endangered species, when the species formerly lived on the land but it currently is not suitable habitat for the species and is not essential to species conservation.
  2. An agency may exclude land from being designated “critical habitat” if it determines that the economic impact of designation would outweigh any benefit. When an agency decides not to exclude land from designation on this ground, is that decision subject to judicial review?

February 28, 2018

1. Arbitration. New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, No. 17-340.

  1. The Federal Arbitration Act does not apply “to contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or ... other ... workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C. § 1. When an arbitration agreement provides that disputes over arbitrability be decided by the arbitrator, does that include disputes about whether this exemption applies?
  2. Does this interstate-commerce exemption apply to independent-contractor agreements?


2. Government Employment; Employment Discrimination. Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido, No. 17-587.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to private entities only if they have 20 or more employees. Does that small-employer exemption also apply to political subdivisions of the States?

3. Capital Punishment. Madison v. Alabama, No. 17-7505.
Does the Eighth Amendment permit the execution of a prisoner whose mental disability prevents him from remembering his offense or understanding the circumstances of his scheduled execution?

March 6, 2018

1. Takings. Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647.
Must a property owner exhaust state-court remedies to ripen a federal takings claim? Should the Supreme Court's holding to that effect in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank be overturned?


2. Administrative Law; Sex Offenders. Gundy v. United States, No. 17-6068.
The federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act authorizes the Attorney General "to specify [its] applicability ... to sex offenders convicted before the enactment of this Act." 34 U.S.C. §20913(d). Was that an impermissible delegation of Congress' legislative power?

March 22, 2018

1. Immigration. Nielsen v. Preap, No. 16-1363.
The Department of Homeland Security must detain a criminal alien, without the possibility of release on bond, if his crime makes him inadmissible or deportable “when the alien is released” at the end of his imprisonment. 8 U.S.C. 1226(c). If DHS does not immediately take such an alien into custody on release, but apprehends him at some later point, does the mandatory-detention requirement still apply?

April 03, 2018

1. Criminal Sentencing. Stokeling v. United States, No. 17-5554.
Does a state robbery conviction with an element of overcoming “victim resistance” categorically qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, where state law allows the overcoming-resistance element to be satisfied by even a slight use of force, such as snatching an item away from the victim?

April 25, 2018

1. Criminal Sentencing. United States v. Sims, No. 17-765; United States v. Stitt, No. 17-766.
Whether unlawful entry of a nonpermanent structure or vehicle that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

May 01, 2018

1. Class Actions. Frank v. Gaos, No. 17-961.
Under what circumstances, if ever, may a district court approve a cy pres class settlement that provides no direct relief to class members?

2. Arbitration. Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988.
When contracting parties agree to arbitration “in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings,” are they consenting to class arbitration proceedings?

3. Capital Punishment. Buckley v. Precythe, No. 17-8151.

  1. When an inmate claims that an execution method is unconstitutional as applied to him due to his rare and severe medical condition, should the reviewing court assume that medical personnel can manage that condition and that the procedure will go as intended, or may the inmate attempt to prove otherwise?
  2. A facial constitutional challenge to a method of execution requires the inmate to prove that a feasible alternative method would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. Does that requirement also govern an inmate’s claims that, due to his unique medical circumstances, a method of execution is unconstitutional only as applied to him?
    1. Must he present a witness who directly opines that his proposed method is better than the state’s?
    2. This petitioner claims that execution by lethal injection would rupture the cavernous hemangioma in his throat, causing him an extended sensation of suffocation. Has he adequately proved that executing him with lethal gas instead would reduce the likely severity and duration of that pain?

May 15, 2018

1. Maritime Law; Products Liability. Air & Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, No. 17-1104.
Under maritime law, can a products-liability defendant be held liable for injuries caused by components that it did not manufacture, sell, or distribute, but that were added to the defendant’s product after its sale?

2. Railroads. BNSF Railway Co. v. Loos, No. 17-1042.
The Railroad Retirement Tax Act funds retirement payments to rail workers by levying payroll taxes on “money remuneration paid to an individual for services rendered as an employee.” Does that include a railroad’s payment to an employee for lost wages from missed work time?

May 22, 2018

1. Nuclear Power; Preemption. Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, No. 16-1275.
The federal Atomic Energy Act preempts the field of radiological-safety regulations, but allows the States to regulate mining. Virginia, which contains the largest uranium deposit in the country, has banned uranium mining. If the ban was motivated by concerns about radiation safety, is it preempted?

2. Social Security; Attorneys’ Fees. Culbertson v. Berryhill, No. 17-773.
Attorney fee awards for social-security claimants who were “represented before the court by an attorney” are capped at 25 percent of the judgment. 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). Does that limit only fees for representation in court, or are fees for representation before the Social Security Administration included in the cap as well?

3. International Law. Jam v. International Finance Corp., No. 17-1011.

  1. The International Organizations Immunities Act affords international organizations “the same immunity from suit ... as is enjoyed by foreign governments.” 22 U.S.C. § 288a(b). Does this adopt the law of sovereign immunity as it existed when the IOIA was enacted in 1945, or does it incorporate later developments in the law of sovereign immunity, such as the denial of immunity for strictly commercial acts?
  2. If the IOIA adopts the law of sovereign immunity as it existed in 1945, do those rules bestow absolute immunity, or do they instead require deference to the executive branch’s position?

4. Indian Law; Criminal Procedure. Royal v. Murphy, No. 17-1107.
Did Congress ever disestablish the Indian reservations that once covered what is now the eastern half of Oklahoma?

June 19, 2018

1. Antitrust Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204.
When an agent (Apple) sells things (iPhone apps) on behalf of their sellers (app developers) in exchange for an agreed-upon commission, and collects both the purchase price and the commission directly from customers, who may sue seeking antitrust damages based on the amount of the commissions—the sellers or the customers?

2. Criminal Procedure; Due Process Timbs v. Indiana, No.17-1091
Is the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment?

3. Securities Fraud Lorenzo v. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 17-1077.
The securities laws prohibit both making fraudulent statements and participating in a fraudulent scheme. If a defendant helps to disseminate someone else’s false statements in a way that stops short of “making” the statements himself, can that still give rise to “fraudulent scheme” liability?

4. Criminal Procedure; Plea Bargains Garza v. Idaho, No. 17-1026.
For purposes of an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, there ordinarily is a presumption that a convicted defendant was prejudiced by trial counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal. Plea bargains often include appeal waivers, which cover many—but usually not all—possible issues that could be appealed. When a defendant tells his counsel to file a notice of appeal, but counsel does not because the defendant’s plea agreement includes an appeal waiver, does the presumption of prejudice apply?

5. Federal Lands Sturgeon v. Frost, No. 17-949.
In certain water bodies within national park boundaries in Alaska, the federal government holds navigational rights and reserved water rights, but someone other than the federal government holds title in the land that forms the submerged waterbottom. Does the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act authorize the National Park Service to regulate activity on these water bodies?

June 29, 2018

1. Sovereign Immunity; Diplomatic Immunity. Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, No. 16-1094.
The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides that, under certain circumstances, a foreign state may be served by mailed documents “address and dispatched ... to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. sec. 1608(a)(3). The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations provides that “the premises of the mission shall be inviolable.” Do these provisions permit a foreign state to be served by documents mailed to the foreign state’s ministry head care of the foreign state’s embassy in the United States?

2. Indian Law. Herrera v. Wyoming, No. 17-352.
The United States’ 1868 treaty with the Crow Tribe of Indians guaranteed the Tribe “the right to hunt on the unoccupied lands of the United States.” Did the later admission of Wyoming to the union abrogate those rights, or did the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest make the land therein “occupied” such that tribe members may no longer hunt there?

3. Indian Law; State Taxes. Washington Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., No. 16-1498.
The Yakama Nation’s treaty with the United States allows the government to build roads across the tribe’s reservation, and in return gives tribal members “the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to travel upon all public highways.” Does that exempt tribal members from state taxes on commercial activity that necessarily uses public highways?

4. State Taxes. Dawson v. Steager, No. 17-419.
States may tax the pay of federal employees “if the taxation does not discrimination ... because of the source of the pay.” 4 U.S.C. 111. West Virginia exempts from taxation certain retirement benefits for state employees, including police officers. Must it also exempt retirement benefits for U.S. Marshals?

5. State Sovereign Immunity; State Taxes. California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299.
Can a state be sued without its consent in the courts of another state? Should Nevada v. Hall’s affirmative answer to that question be overruled?

6. Appellate Procedure; Class Actions; Civil Procedure. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094.
When a rule or statute sets a mandatory but non-jurisdictional deadline for filing documents related to an appeal or lawsuit, can equitable exceptions sometimes excuse a party’s missing the deadline? If so, do such exceptions apply to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)’s fourteen-day deadline for seeking permission to appeal from an order granting or denying class certification?

7. Social Security Disability. Biestek v. Berryhill, No. 17-1184.
Social-security disability applications must be denied if an ALJ finds, based on substantial evidence, whether the applicant can adjust to other work. Can a vocational expert’s opinion in this regard qualify as substantial evidence, if the expert rejects the applicant’s for the data underlying the opinion?

8. Patent Law. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 17-1229.
Does prior art include the sale of an invention where the buyer is required to keep the invention confidential?

9. Patent Law. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.Com, LLC, No. 17-571.
The Copyright Act allows infringement actions only once “preregistration or registration of the copyright claim has been made.” 17 U.S.C. 411(a). Does that require only delivering the application and fee to the Copyright Office, or does it also require that the Office act on the application?

10. Arbitration. Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272.
May a court decline to enforce an agreement delegating questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator, if the court finds the claim of arbitrability to be wholly groundless?   

11. Double Jeopardy. Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646.
The “separate sovereigns” exception to the prohibition on double jeopardy allows state and federal governments to convict and imprison a defendant for the same conduct. Should that exception be overturned?

12. Free Speech; Search and Seizure. Nieves v. Bartlett, No. 17-1174.
If police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, does that foreclose the arrestee from later claiming that the arrest was actually retaliation for his or her protected speech?

13. Debt Collection. Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, No. 17-1307.
Does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act apply to non-judicial foreclosure proceedings?

14. Drugs & Medical Devices. Merch Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290.
Federal law preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim about a drug or medical device, if the federal FDA would not have approved the label that the plaintiff claims the manufacturer should have used. When the FDA actually rejected a proposed warning submitted by the manufacturer, may a failure-to-warn plaintiff avoid preemption by persuading the trier of fact that cosmetic changes to the manufacturer’s proposal would have led to FDA approval?   


The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.

Related Legal Services

Related Topics

The Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP website uses cookies to make your browsing experience as useful as possible. In order to have the full site experience, keep cookies enabled on your web browser. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP's cookies information for more details.