Share and Follow
I started writing up a quick rundown/crib sheet of Supreme Court decisions in June of 2023 and am told readers found this helpful, so “The Skinny on SCOTUS” is returning.
While the 2022 term proved a somewhat “quieter” year at the Court following the Dobbs furor in the 2021 term — the terms start in October of each year and run through September of the following year, but the big ticket decisions tend to be handed down in late Spring — the 2023 term looks to be fairly consequential. There are anticipated decisions affecting elections, former President Trump’s immunity defense, the scope of the regulatory state, the intersection between Big Tech censorship and the First Amendment, the prosecution of J6 defendants, and more. So there is/will be a lot of ground to cover.
There have already been 16 decisions handed down in the 2023 term, so we have a bit of catching up to do. To that end, I’m going to break them down chronologically, with this first batch covering December 2023 through February 2024. (One minor aside on these decisions: Note that all five were 9-0 decisions. Remember that the next time you hear someone contending that the Court is thoroughly partisan.)
As always, this is by no means intended as a thorough analysis — just a quick overview for the non-law-geek sorts:
December 2023 Decision
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer
Date: December 5, 2023
Author: Barrett
Split: 9-0
Dissent: N/A
Appeal From: First Circuit
Basic Facts:
Issue: Whether Laufer has standing to sue hotels at which she had no intention of staying and whether her voluntary dismissal of the suit rendered the issue moot.
Holding: Case vacated as moot.
February 2024 Decisions
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC
Date: February 8, 2024
Author: Sotomayor
Split: 9-0
Dissent: N/A
Appeal From: Second Circuit
Basic Facts:
In the District Court, UBS argued it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Murray’s whistleblower claim because Murray “failed to produce any evidence that [his supervisor] possessed any sort of retaliatory animus toward him.” The District Court denied the motion. As relevant here, it instructed the jury that, to prove his § 1514A claim, Murray must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that his “protected activity was a contributing factor in the termination of his employment.” If Murray did so, the burden would shift to UBS to “demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that it would have terminated [Murray’s] employment even if he had not engaged in protected activity.” The jury found that Murray had established his § 1514A claim and UBS had failed to prove that it would have fired Murray even if he had not engaged in protected activity. On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated the jury’s verdict and remanded for a new trial. The Second Circuit held that “[r]etaliatory intent is an element of a section 1514A claim,” and the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on Murray’s burden to prove UBS’s retaliatory intent.
Issue: Whether a whistleblower seeking to invoke the protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act need prove that the employer acted with retaliatory intent in terminating his employment.
Holding: Reversed and remanded.
A whistleblower who invokes § 1514A must prove that his protected activity was a contributing factor in the employer’s unfavorable personnel action, but need not prove that his employer acted with “retaliatory intent.”
Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz
Date: February 8, 2024
Split: 9-0
Dissent: N/A
Appeal From: Third Circuit
Basic Facts:
The Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, as amended by the Consumer Credit Reporting Reform Act of 1996, allows consumers to sue lenders who willfully or negligently supply false information about them to entities that generate credit reports. Respondent Reginald Kirtz secured a loan from a division of the United States Department of Agriculture and later sued the agency for money damages under the FCRA. Kirtz alleged that the USDA falsely told TransUnion—a credit reporting agency—that his account was past due, thus damaging his credit score and his ability to secure loans at affordable rates. The USDA moved to dismiss, invoking sovereign immunity. The District Court sided with the USDA. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that 15 U. S. C. §§ 1681n and 1681o authorize suits for damages against “any person” who violates the FCRA, and § 1681a expressly defines “person” to include “any” government agency.
Issue: Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.1681 et seq., unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
Holding: Affirmed.
A consumer may sue a federal agency for defying the FCRA’s terms.
Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.
Split: 9-0
Dissent: N/A
Appeal From: Third Circuit
Basic Facts:
Issue:
- Under federal admiralty law, can a choice of law clause in a maritime contract be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced?
Holding: Reversed.
McElrath v. Georgia
Split: 9-0
Dissent: N/A
Appeal From: Georgia Supreme Court
Basic Facts:
Issue:
Holding: Reversed and remanded.
