- Landor v. Louisiana Division of Corrections and Public Security: Two federal statutes defend non secular train: the Non secular Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) and the Non secular Land Use and Institutionalized Individuals Act of 2000 (RLUIPA). In Tanzin v. Tanvir, 592 U.S. 43 (2020), the Supreme Court docket held that a person might sue a authorities official in his particular person capability for damages for violations of RFRA. RLUIPA’s related language is an identical. The query earlier than the Court docket is whether or not a person might sue a authorities official in his particular person capability for damages for violations of RLUIPA.
- Hencely v. Fluor Company: Former U.S. Military Specialist Winston T. Hencely was critically and completely injured by a suicide bomber inside Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The bomber, Ahmad Nayeb, labored on base as a authorities contractor for the Fluor Company. Invoking Boyle v. United Applied sciences Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the Fourth Circuit Court docket of Appeals held that Hencely’s state legislation declare is preempted beneath the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) exception immunizing the federal government for “[a]ny declare arising out of the combatant actions of the army or naval forces … throughout time of struggle.” The choice reaffirmed a 3-1-1 cut up among the many Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth and D.C. Circuits over Boyle’s attain when contractors defend in opposition to state tort claims by invoking §2680(j). The query earlier than the Court docket is “[s]hould Boyle be prolonged to permit federal pursuits emanating from the FTCA’s combatant-activities exception to preempt state tort claims in opposition to a authorities contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated army orders?”
- The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist: Residents of Texas filed a products-liability go well with in state court docket in opposition to Hain Celestial Group, Inc., then a citizen of Delaware and New York, and Complete Meals, Inc., a citizen of Texas. Hain eliminated primarily based on variety jurisdiction, arguing that Complete Meals needs to be dismissed as fraudulently joined. The district court docket agreed, dismissing Complete Meals with prejudice. After two extra years of federal-court litigation and a two-week jury trial, the district court docket granted judgment as a matter of legislation to Hain. On attraction, with out ruling on the deserves, the Fifth Circuit Court docket of Appeals held that the district court docket erred in dismissing Complete Meals, vacated the ultimate judgment, and ordered the matter remanded to state court docket to start out from scratch. Counting on Respondents’ post-removal amended grievance, the panel held, in battle with a number of different courts of appeals, that the district court docket lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment as to the fully numerous events earlier than it. The query earlier than the Court docket is “[w]hether a district court docket’s ultimate judgment as to fully numerous events should be vacated when an appellate court docket later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse celebration on the time of removing.”
- Studying Sources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Choices): Essentially the most anticipated case of the month entails the Trump Administration’s tariff coverage. The Worldwide Emergency Financial Powers Act (EEPA) permits the President, upon a legitimate emergency declaration, to “examine, block throughout the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, forestall or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, switch, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any proper, energy, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property wherein any international nation or a nationwide thereof has any curiosity[.]” Till now, no President in IEEPA’s almost 50-year historical past has ever invoked it to impose tariffs. The query earlier than the justices is “[w]hether IEEPA authorizes the President to impose tariffs.”