SCOTUScast

On June 3, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Van Buren v. United States. The issue was whether a person who is authorized to access information on a computer for certain purposes violates Section 1030(a)(2) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if he accesses the same information for an improper purpose.In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Barrett, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “An individual ‘exceeds authorized access’ under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2), when he accesses a computer with authorization but then obtains information located in particular areas of the computer — such as files, folders or databases — that are off-limits to him..”Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito joined.Orin Kerr, Professor of Law at UC Berkeley Law, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.

On June 14th, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Terry v. U.S. The issue before the Court was whether pre-August 3rd, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C 841(b)(1)(c) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joined. We are joined today by Vikrant P. Reddy, Senior Research Fellow at the Charles Koch Institute.

On May 24, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Palomar-Santiago. The issue was whether a defendant who was removed from the United States is automatically entitled to a defense of invalid removal where the crime underlying his removal is no longer a qualifying removal offense within his circuit.In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “Each of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)’s statutory requirements for bringing a collateral attack on a prior deportation order is mandatory.”Brian Fish, Special Assistant to the United States Attorney in Baltimore, MD, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.

On June 10th, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Borden v. United States. The issue before the Court was whether the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act encompasses crimes with an intent requirement of mere recklessness. Justice Elena Kagan authored the four-justice plurality opinion in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch joined, reversing the judgement of the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, concluding that, quote, “a criminal offense with a mens rea of recklessness does not qualify as a “violent felony” under the ACCA’s elements clause.” Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgement. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, Alito, and Barrett joined. Joining us today to discuss this decision is Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, and author of over 150 briefs in cases in the Supreme Court.

On June 1, 2021 the Supreme Court decided United States v. Cooley. The issue was whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search the respondent, Joshua James Cooley, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Court vacated the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded. The Supreme Court held, “A tribal police officer has authority to detain temporarily and to search a non-Native American traveling on a public right-of-way running through a reservation for potential violations of state or federal law.”Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Anthony Ferate, Of Counsel at Spencer Fane LLP, joins us today to discuss the Court’s decision and its implications.

On June 7, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Sanchez v. Mayorkas. The issue before the Court was whether the conferral of Temporary Protected Status under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a constitutes an “admission” into the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1255, adjustment of status of nonimmigrant to that of person admitted for permanent residence. The Honorable Grover Rees, III, retired U.S. Ambassador to East Timor, and former General Counsel of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1991 to 1993, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.

On June 1, 2021 the Supreme Court decided City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com L.P. The issue was whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit alone has held, district courts “lack[] discretion to deny or reduce” appellate costs deemed “taxable” in district court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e).In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Alito, the Court affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Supreme Court held, “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39 does not permit a district court to alter a court of appeals’ allocation of the costs listed in subdivision (e) of that rule.”Charles Campbell, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Associate Professor of Law at Faulkner University’s Jones School of Law, joins us today to discuss this decision and its implications.

On May 17, 2021 the Supreme Court decided BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.The issue was was whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.In a 7-1 opinion authored by Justice Gorsuch, the Court vacated the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, holding, “Where defendant energy companies premised 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d) removal in part on the federal officer removal statute, Section 1442, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider all grounds for removal rejected by the district court.”Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.Karen Harned, Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, joins us to discuss this decision.

On April 1, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Facebook Inc. v. Duguid. The issue was whether the definition of an "automatic telephone dialing system" in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 encompasses any device that can “store” and “automatically dial” telephone numbers, even if the device does not “us[e] a random or sequential number generator.”In a 9-0 opinion authored by Justice Sotamayor, the Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case. The Supreme Court held, “To qualify as an ‘automatic telephone dialing system’ under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, a device must have the capacity either to store, or to produce, a telephone number using a random or sequential number generator.” This decision narrows the federal robocoll ban. Scott D. Delacourt, Partner at Wiley Rein LLP and Daniel Lyons, Professor of Law at Boston College School of Law, joins us today for a conversation moderated by Danielle Thumann, Attorney Advisor for FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr.

On May 17, 2021 the Supreme Court decided Edwards v. Vannoy. The issue was whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v. Louisiana applies retroactively to cases on federal collateral review.In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Kavanaugh, the Court affirmed the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding, “The jury-unanimity rule announced in Ramos v. Louisiana does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review.”Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Breyer and Sotomayor joined.Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel at the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, joins us to discuss this decision and its implications.