Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion. Kagan wrote: [46]. This Court recognized assignor estoppel a century ago, and we reaffirm that judgment today. But as the Court recognized from the beginning, the doctrine is not limitless. Its boundaries reflect its equitable basis: to prevent an assignor from warranting one thing and later alleging another.
Assignor estoppel applies when an invalidity defense in an infringement suit conflicts with an explicit or implicit representation made in assigning patent rights. But absent that kind of inconsistency, an invalidity defense raises no concern of fair dealing—so assignor estoppel has no place. For these reasons, we vacate the judgment of the Federal Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Kagan authored a majority opinion in Borden v. United States , holding that a reckless offense cannot qualify as a "violent felony" if it only requires a mens rea of recklessness—a less culpable mental state than purpose or knowledge. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Kagan wrote: [47]. Offenses with a mens rea of recklessness do not qualify as violent felonies under ACCA. They do not require, as ACCA does, the active employment of force against another person.
And they are not the stuff of armed career criminals. The judgment below is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Kagan authored a majority opinion in this case that upheld the delegation of power to the attorney general under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification.
Kagan was joined in the majority by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Alito wrote a concurring opinion. Kagan authored a majority opinion in this case ruling that the Eighth Amendment may prohibit executing a prison who suffers from demetia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions.
Kagan wrote: [49]. On June 22, , the court issued its opinion in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment. In , Kimble and Marvel settled out of court with Marvel agreeing to purchase the patent and pay royalties without an expiration. The lawsuit was subsequently dismissed.
Five years later, in , Marvel had a licensing agreement with Hasbro giving Hasbro the right to produce the toy. Kimble sued Marvel, claiming the original patent would be infringed if royalties weren't paid. A federal district court, acting on the determination of a federal magistrate judge , awarded summary judgment Refers to a judgment granted on a claim about which there is no genuine issue of fact and to which the party moving for judgment prevails as a matter of law.
Supreme Court's Brulotte rule. The rule was developed in the court's opinion in Brulotte v. Thys Co. In Brulotte, the court "ruled that, when patents are sold in return for a royalty payment, the purchaser was not obligated to continue these payments beyond the expiration date of the patents because doing so would over-compensate the seller of the patent and improperly extend the patent monopoly beyond the intended time limit.
Writing for a six-justice majority, Kagan held that the Brulotte rule should be upheld "because no subsequent legal developments have made the rule announced in that decision obsolete and it has remained workable, there is no reason to overturn the decision.
The court also noted that Congress had ample opportunity to enact a statute that forecloses the Brulotte rule but has not done so. On June 25, , the U. Supreme Court issued its ruling in two consolidated cases, Miller v.
Alabama and Jackson v. Both cases appealed lower court judgments in which a juvenile defendant was convicted for capital murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Writing for a five-justice majority, Kagan held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment forbade mandatory sentences of life without parole for juvenile homicide defenders. In noting that children are different from adults under the Constitution for sentencing purposes, the court held that life without parole was a disproportionate punishment for juveniles, but not for adult offenders.
Justice Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion in the case of American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant. The case was brought by Italian Colors and a group of merchants that felt that American Express used its leverage in the high end credit card market to force high fees on their more normal range cards.
Italian Colors sued to be able to bring a class-action lawsuit against the company, which was prohibited by the company's usage agreement. The court held that an arbitration agreement that prevents class or collective arbitration was enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act FAA "even if the proposed class of plaintiffs proves that it would be economically infeasible for individuals to pursue arbitration on their own.
In her dissent, Kagan drew heavily on the Sherman Act, which is a law that enforces antitrusts. She wrote about the majority opinion:. Since he joined the court through the term, Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion in a decision seven times and had not authored a dissent in an decision.
Ramirez , holding that members of the class-action lawsuit whose credit files were not provided to third-party businesses did not suffer a concrete harm from TransUnion's actions and therefore lacked standing The legal right to sue. In this case, a class of 8, individuals sued TransUnion, a credit reporting agency, in federal court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiffs claimed that TransUnion failed to use reasonable procedures to ensure the accuracy of their credit files, as maintained internally by TransUnion.
For 1, of the class members, TransUnion provided misleading credit reports to third-party businesses. We conclude that those 1, class members have demonstrated concrete reputational harm and thus have Article III standing to sue on the reasonable-procedures claim.
The internal credit files of the other 6, class members were not provided to third-party businesses during the relevant time period. We conclude that those 6, class members have not demonstrated concrete harm and thus lack Article III standing to sue on the reasonable-procedures claim. Kavanaugh authored a majority opinion in McKinney v. Arizona , holding that a state appellate court, rather than a jury, may conduct a reweighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances on habeas corpus review in cases concerning the death penalty.
But that does not mean that a jury is constitutionally required to weigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances or to make the ultimate sentencing decision within the relevant sentencing range.
McKinney notes that the Arizona trial court, not the jury, made the initial aggravating circumstance finding that made him eligible for the death penalty. Kavanaugh authored a majority opinion in Barton v. We affirm the judgment of the U. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Kavanaugh authored a majority opinion in Thole v. Bank , holding the plaintiffs did not have standing The legal right to sue.
Kavanaugh authored a majority opinion in this case holding that a public access television station was not subject to the First Amendment. Kavanaugh wrote: [61]. Kavanaugh authored a majority opinion in this case ruling that those who purchase apps through Apple's App Store are direct purchasers and can therefore sue Apple for allegedly monopolizing the market and increasing prices. Kavanaugh wrote: [62]. Since he joined the court through the term, Roberts authored the majority opinion in a decision 30 times and authored one dissent in an decision.
Roberts authored a majority opinion in PennEast Pipeline Co. New Jersey , holding that Section f h authorizes FERC certificate holders to condemn all necessary rights-of-way, whether owned by private parties or by states. In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [64]. Roberts authored a majority opinion in United States v. Arthrex Inc. The court ruled to fix the constitutional issue by removing the statutory provisions that blocked the director of the Patent and Trademark Office PTO from unilaterally reviewing APJ decisions.
In the court's majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote: [65]. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California , holding the U. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Georgia v. Org Inc. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Espinoza v.
Montana Department of Revenue , holding the application of Article X, Section 6 of the Montana Constitution violated the free exercise clause of the U. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau , holding the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau CFPB , an independent agency that exercised executive powers and had a director protected from at-will termination by the president, was unconstitutional. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Department of Commerce v.
New York , ruling that the Trump administration 's decision to add the citizenship question to the census did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act, but that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross ' rationale for the decision was inconsistent with the administrative record.
Roberts was joined in part by the following justices: [66]. Roberts authored a majority opinion in a joint ruling for Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. The court ruled that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. Roberts wrote: [67]. Roberts authored a majority opinion that overturned the requirement established in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v.
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City that a person claiming unlawful taking of their property by a state or local government must first seek all available options for redress in a state court before petitioning a federal court. It found that the requirement conflicted with the later ruling in San Remo Hotel, L. City and County of San Francisco that a state court's ruling in such cases precludes any federal judgment, creating a situation where a plaintiff had no opportunity to appeal a taking to the federal government until after it was too late for the federal government to act.
Roberts wrote: [68]. Roberts authored a majority opinion in Lamps Plus Inc. Varela , ruling that under "the Federal Arbitration Act, an ambiguous agreement cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to submit to class arbitration. Roberts wrote: [69]. Under the Affordable Care Act , state governments were required to establish a marketplace through which residents could purchase health insurance.
These marketplaces were called exchanges. If a state failed to create an exchange, the federal government would establish one under the authority of the U.
Department of Health and Human Services. Under the Affordable Care Act, individuals were required to purchase health insurance or risk paying a tax penalty from their annual income tax returns unless an individual fell within an exemption for low-income individuals. To limit the number of individuals who fell under the exemption, the Affordable Care Act authorized tax credits to offset the cost of coverage, however, the statutory language stipulated that the credits were for those who enrolled via exchanges established by state governments.
The Internal Revenue Service, by regulation, extended the tax credits to those who enrolled through a marketplace created by the Department of Health and Human Services. The question brought to the court was whether the Internal Revenue Service regulation was in violation of congressional prerogatives under the Affordable Care Act. Writing for a six-justice majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that Congress' intent was for the tax credits to go to individuals who signed up for health insurance through the exchanges regardless of whether the exchanges were established by the federal government or a state government.
Sebelius , better known as the challenge to the Obama administration 's Affordable Care Act. Challengers to the law argued that the federal government's power under the Commerce Clause was not valid to make individuals purchase a good or service, in this case, healthcare.
Roberts agreed with that interpretation. However, he allowed the law to stand on the basis of Congress' authority to levy a tax. For a thorough explanation of the federal healthcare act and the challenges it faced in court, see: Obamacare overview.
In a statement about the legislation, Paul said:. Seattle School District No. At issue was whether it was constitutionally permissible for a public school district, and particularly those that had not operated segregated schools in the past, to 1 classify students by race and 2 rely upon such racial classifications in making school assignments.
The school districts involved voluntarily adopted student assignment plans that relied upon race to determine which public schools certain children may attend. In Jefferson County, it was used to make certain elementary school assignments and to rule on transfer requests. In each case, the school districts relied upon an individual student's race in assigning that student to a particular school, so that the racial balance at the school fell within a predetermined range based on the racial composition of the school district as a whole.
Parents of students denied assignment to particular schools under these plans solely because of their race brought suit, contending that allocating children to different public schools on the basis of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.
Race matters in part because of the long history of racial minorities' being denied access to the political process… And race matters for reasons that really are only skin deep, that cannot be discussed any other way, and that cannot be wished away.
Race matters to a young man's view of society when he spends his teenage years watching others tense up as he passes, no matter the neighbourhood where he grew up. Race matters to a young woman's sense of self when she states her hometown, and then is pressed, 'No, where are you really from?
Race matters because of the slights, the snickers, the silent judgments that reinforce that most crippling of thoughts: 'I do not belong here. Samuel Alito. On the court since : 31 January How he g ot to the court : Alito grew up in New Jersey in an Italian immigrant family. While at Princeton University, he was involved in conservative and libertarian groups, as well as the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps.
After Yale law school, he was a prosecutor in New Jersey and served in the Reagan administration in the justice department, including as assistant to the solicitor general, where he argued before the Supreme Court. Who is he as a justice? Alito is a conservative justice, but one who does not hew as often to originalism as fellow conservatives Scalia and Thomas.
He is not always talkative in oral arguments but his questions are sharp, aiming to pick apart an argument's logic.
Alito has a low public profile despite being a large part of the court's rightward shift on business, campaign finance and racial issues over the past decade. The former prosecutor has been "very pro-government" in criminal cases, Coyle says, and has shown less willingness than his conservative colleagues to protect free speech in cases where it is harmful or hateful. Justice's O pinion: Alito wrote for the majority in a labour case, Harris v Quinn, in which the court ruled labour groups could not collect fees from Illinois home health care workers who did not want to join the union despite being covered by collective bargaining.
John Roberts. On the court since : 29 September How he got to the court : Born in New York and raised in Indiana, Roberts attended a boarding school as a teenager but also spent summers working in a steel mill. After considering becoming a historian at Harvard, he went to law school there instead, eventually clerking for then-Associate Justice Rehnquist. He spent many years as a lawyer in the Reagan administration then entered private practice, arguing before the high court and serving as one of several legal advisers to George W Bush in the Florida presidential recount case.
Originally nominated to fill the spot left by retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Roberts was re-nominated for the chief justice position after Chief Justice Rehnquist died between terms, and his nomination was fast-tracked.
Who is he as a ju stice : A conservative justice, Roberts is the third-youngest Chief Justice in the court's history, confirmed at 50 years old.
Last year's term saw more than half its cases decided unanimously, something many court watchers cite as the outcome of Roberts' desire to foster agreement through narrower rulings. He also notably wrote the opinion that shot down a major challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare law. Roberts also looks to keep decorum on the bench during oral arguments. Justice's O pinion : Roberts, writing for the majority in Shelby County v Holder, effectively knocked out a part of the Voting Rights Act which requires certain states to gain permission of the justice department before changing their voting laws.
The question is whether the Act's extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements.
As we put it a short time ago, "the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs". Stephen Breyer. On the court since : 3 August How he got to the court : Breyer grew up in San Francisco with a lawyer father and a politically-active mother, attending Stanford, then Harvard Law.
After clerking for Justice Arthur Goldberg, he moved into government, working as counsel in various positions in Congress, including as an assistant special prosecutor in the Watergate investigation. He spent a lengthy period of time on the First Circuit Court of Appeals and was considered for a Supreme Court nomination in It went to Ruth Bader Ginsburg instead. Parkland survivor: Gun rights expansion will 'have an affect on an entire generation'. Supreme Court hears arguments in Second Amendment case.
Biden Supreme Court commission delays final report to December New York health workers ask Supreme Court to block state's vaccine mandate. The U. Supreme Court announced on March 12, , that it was closing to the public indefinitely, beginning at p. The court posted on its website, "Out of concern for the health and safety of the public and Supreme Court employees, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public from p.
The map below highlights states whose policies and procedures for the November 3, , general election were affected by U. Supreme Court actions. For more detailed information, including case summaries, click here. In , when the federal government moved for a final time to Washington, D. Following this episode, the Court returned to the Capitol and met from to in a chamber now restored as the 'Old Supreme Court Chamber.
In , "architect Cass Gilbert was charged by Chief Justice Taft to design 'a building of dignity and importance suitable for its use as the permanent home of the Supreme Court of the United States. The Chief Justice occupies the center chair; the senior Associate Justice sits to his right, the second senior to his left, and so on, alternating right and left by seniority. Johnson, Jr. Ballotpedia features , encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers.
Click here to contact our editorial staff, and click here to report an error. Click here to contact us for media inquiries, and please donate here to support our continued expansion. Share this page Follow Ballotpedia. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. File:Gerald R. Ford potential Supreme Court nominees. JPG List of potential nominees to the U. File:John G. Bush watches as Judge John G. Political responses overview State reopening plans Documenting America's Path to Recovery Daily updates Election changes Changes to vote-by-mail and absentee voting procedures Federal responses State responses State executive orders Stay-at-home orders Multistate agreements Non-governmental reopening plans Evictions and foreclosures policies Travel restrictions Enacted state legislation State legislative session changes School closures State court closures Inmate releases Local government responses Diagnosed or quarantined politicians Ballot measure changes Arguments about government responses The influenza pandemic Pandemic Response Accountability Committee Unemployment filings Lawsuits Ballotpedia's polling on the coronavirus pandemic Submit.
Supreme Court Building. Supreme Court Building in December, Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Louis , "The U. Hidden category: Pages with reference errors. Voter information What's on my ballot? Where do I vote? How do I register to vote? How do I request a ballot? When do I vote? When are polls open? Who Represents Me? Congress special elections Governors State executives State legislatures Ballot measures State judges Municipal officials School boards.
How do I update a page? Election results. Privacy policy About Ballotpedia Disclaimers Login. Chief: John Roberts. Associate justice Samuel Alito.
Chief justice John Roberts. Associate justice Clarence Thomas. Associate justice Stephen Breyer. Associate justice Elena Kagan. Associate justice Sonia Sotomayor. Associate justice Neil Gorsuch. Associate justice Brett Kavanaugh. Associate justice Amy Coney Barrett. The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State ,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. So help me God.
0コメント