October 01, 2022

Certiorari Grants 2022 to 2023

The United States Supreme Court Has Granted Review in the Following Cases for Decision This Term:

Anti-Terrorism Act

Gonzalez v. Google LLC, No. 21-1333.

Does Section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information?

Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, No. 21-1496.

  • Whether a defendant that provides generic, widely available services to all its numerous users and “regularly” works to detect and prevent terrorists from using those services “knowingly” provided substantial assistance under Section 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use.
  • Whether a defendant whose generic, widely available services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff may be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333.

Attorney-Client Privilege

In re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397.

Whether a communication involving both legal and nonlegal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege where obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.

Copyright & Trademark

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, No. 22-148.

  • Whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims.
  • Whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is “noncommercial” under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C), thus barring as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act.

Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., No. 21-1043.

Whether the court of appeals erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to petitioners’ foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States or confused U.S. consumers.

Criminal Law

Dubin v. United States, No. 22-10.

The question presented is whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time he mentions or otherwise recites someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.

Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, No. 21-1450.

Whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441(d), 1602-1611.

Education

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, No. 21-887.

  • Whether, and in what circumstances, courts should excuse further exhaustion of the IDEA’s administrative proceedings under Section 1415(l) when such proceedings would be futile.
  • Whether Section 1415(l) requires exhaustion of a non-IDEA claim seeking money damages that are not available under the IDEA.

Federal Courts

Financial Oversight Board v. CPI, No. 22-96.

Does 48 U.S.C. § 2126(a)’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Board and claims otherwise arising under the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims?

Immigration

Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, No. 21-1436.

  • Whether Section 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional, or merely a mandatory claims processing rule that may be waived or forfeited.
  • Whether, to satisfy Section 1252(d)(1)’s exhaustion requirement, a noncitizen who challenges a new error introduced by the BIA must first ask the agency to exercise its discretion to reopen or reconsider.

Indian Law

Arizona v. Navajo Nation, No. 21-1484.

  • Does the Ninth Circuit opinion — allowing the Nation to proceed with a claim to enjoin the Secretary to develop a plan to meet the Nation’s water needs and manage the mainstream of the LBCR so as not to interfere with that plan — infringe upon this Court’s retained and exclusive jurisdiction over the allocation of water from the LBCR mainstream in Arizona v. California?
  • Can the Nation state a cognizable claim for breach of trust consistent with this Court’s holding in Jicarilla based solely on unquantified implied rights to water under the Winters Doctrine?

Department of Interior v. Navajo Nation, No. 22-51.

Whether the federal government owes the Navajo Nation an affirmative, judicially enforceable fiduciary duty to assess and address the Navajo Nation’s need for water from particular sources, in the absence of any substantive source of law that expressly establishes such a duty.

International Law & Foreign Relations

Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, No. 21-1450.

Whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330, 1441(d), 1602-1611.

Labor & Employment

Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, No. 21-1449.

Does the National Labor Relations Act impliedly preempt a state tort claim against a union for intentionally destroying an employer’s property in the course of a labor dispute?

The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, No. 21-1454.

Does the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies only, see 5 U.S.C. § 7105(g), empower it to regulate the labor practices of state militias?

Patents

Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, No. 21-757.

Whether enablement is governed by the statutory requirement that the specification teach those skilled in the art to “make and use” the claimed invention, 35 U.S.C. § 112, or whether it must instead enable those skilled in the art “to reach the full scope of claimed embodiments” without undue experimentation — i.e., to cumulatively identify and make all or nearly all embodiments of the invention without substantial “‘time and effort.’”

Taxation

In re Grand Jury, No. 21-1397.

Whether a communication involving both legal and nonlegal advice is protected by attorney-client privilege where obtaining or providing legal advice was one of the significant purposes behind the communication.

Related Legal Services

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.