2009 - 2010 Supreme Court Term

Affirmed

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

2/23/2009

Argument Date:

10/7/2009

Question Presented:

1. Whether the Seventh Circuit erroneously held, in square conflict with decisions of the Third, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, that the RLA includes a fourth, implied exception that authorizes courts to set aside final arbitration awards for alleged violations of due process.
2. Whether the Seventh Circuit erroneously held that the Board adopted a “new,” retroactive interpretation of the standards governing its proceedings in violation of due process

7th Cir. Opinion:

573 F.3d 789 06-2542

7th Cir. Panel:

Evans, Flaum and Rovner

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

12/8/2009

Case Name:  Alvarez v. Smith

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

2/23/2009

Argument Date:

10/14/2009

Question Presented:

In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a State or local government to provide a post-seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976)?

7th Cir. Opinion:

524 F.3d 834 07-1599

7th Cir. Panel:

Bauer, Evans and Posner

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

12/8/2009

Case Name:  Jones v. Harris Associates

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

3/9/2009

Argument Date:

11/2/2009

Question Presented:

Issue: Whether the Seventh Circuit contravened the Investment Company Act in holding that a shareholder’s claim that the fund’s investment adviser charged an excessive fee is not cognizable under Section 36(b), unless the shareholder can show that the adviser misled the fund’s directors who approved the fee.

7th Cir. Opinion:

527 F.3d 728    07-1624

7th Cir. Panel:

Easterbrook, Kanne and Evans

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

3/30/2010

Case Name:  Kucana v. Holder

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

4/27/2009

Argument Date:

11/10/2009

Question Presented:

What is the scope of the jurisdictional stripping provision of 8 U.S.C. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and whether the statute removes jurisdiction from federal courts to review rulings on motions to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals?

7th Cir. Opinion:

533 F.3d 537    07-1002

7th Cir. Panel:

Easterbrook, Cudahy, Ripple

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

1/20/2010

Case Name:  Black v. United States

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

5/18/2009

Argument Date:

12/8/2009

Question Presented:

Whether the “honest services” clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants “reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm,” and if the defendants’ reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government’s request for a special verdict.

7th Cir. Opinion:

530 F.3d 596    07-4080

7th Cir. Panel:

Posner, Kanne, Sykes

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

6/24/2010

Case Name:  American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

6/29/2009

Argument Date:

1/13/2010

Question Presented:

1. Are the NFL and its member teams a single entity that is exempt from rule of reason claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act simply because they cooperate in the joint production of NFL football games, without regard to their competing economic interests, their ability to control their own economic decisions, or their ability to compete with each other and the league?
2. Is the agreement of the NFL teams among themselves and with Reebok International, pursuant to which the teams agreed not to compete with each other in the licensing and sale of consumer headwear and clothing decorated with the teams' respective logos and trademarks, and not to permit any licenses to be granted to Reebok's competitors for a period of ten years, subject to a rule of reason claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, where the teams own and control the use of their separate logos and trademarks and, but for their agreement not to, could compete with each other in the licensing and sale of Team Products?

7th Cir. Opinion:

538 F.3d 736    07-4006; order correcting 07-4006

7th Cir. Panel:

Kanne, Sykes, Tinder

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

5/24/2010

Case Name:  Carr v. U.S.

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

9/30/2009

Argument Date:

2/22/2010

Question Presented:

Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register when the defendant’s underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s enactment ; whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA’s enactment.

7th Cir. Opinion:

551 F.3d 578   08-2008

7th Cir. Panel:

Easterbrook, Posner, Rovner

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

6/1/2010

Case Name:  Lewis v. City of Chicago

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

9/30/2009

Argument Date:

2/24/2010

Question Presented:

When an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African Americans in violation of Title VII’s disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file a charge within 300 days after the employer’s use of the discriminatory practice?

7th Cir. Opinion:

528 F.3d 488    07-2052

7th Cir. Panel:

Easterbrook, Bauer, Posner

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

5/24/2010

Case Name:  McDonald v. Chicago

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

9/30/2009

Argument Date:

3/2/2010

Question Presented:

Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.

7th Cir. Opinion:

567 F.3d 856   08-4241

7th Cir. Panel:

Easterbrook, Bauer, Posner

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

6/28/2010

Case Name:  Health Care Services Corp v. Pollitt

Case was dismissed 2/24/2010  after parties reached a settlement

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert Granted:

10/13/2009

Argument Date:

3/3/2010

Questions Presented:

1. Whether the Federal Employees Health Benefits
Act ("FEHBA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 8901-14, completely preempts
-- and therefore makes removable to federal court -- a state court suit challenging enrollment and health benefits determinations that are subject to the exclusively federal remedial scheme established in
FEHBA.
2. Whether the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which authorizes federal removal jurisdiction over state court suits brought against persons "acting under" a federal officer when sued for
actions "under color of [federal] ... office," encompasses a suit against a government contractor administering a FEHBA plan, where the contractor is sued for actions taken pursuant to the government
contract.

7th Cir. Opinion:

558 F.3d 615,   08-3509

7th Cir. Panel:

Easterbrook, Rovner, Evans

S. Ct. Opinion

Date Decided:

Case Name: New Process Steel v. NLRB

S. Ct. Docket:

Cert. Granted:

11/3/2009

Argument Date:

3/23/2010

Questions Presented:

7th Cir. Opinion:

564 F.3d 840   08-3517

7th Cir. Panel:

Flaum, Bauer, Evans

S. Ct. Opinion:

Date Decided:

6/17/2010