Category: 3-LawSometimeCommentary

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Zubik v Burwell, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. This time, a group of religious non-profits are challenging the government’s accommodation for employers who don’t want to have anything to do with providing birth control to their workers. Dahlia speaks with Paul Clement, who argued the case for the plaintiffs, and Walter Dellinger, who supports the government's position.

You can listen to past episodes of Amicus here. Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today here. 

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. 

This week’s excerpts from the Supreme Court’s public sessions were provided by Oyez, a free law project at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, part of the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Amicus is sponsored by Amazon. Detective Harry Bosch is back on the new season of Amazon’s Original Series Bosch, based on the best selling novels by Michael Connelly. Stream the new season now on Amazon Prime Video.

And by The Great Courses Plus, a new video service with more than 5,000 lectures on subjects from science to cooking to history. Right now, you can have unlimited access to the entire Great Courses Plus library—for one whole month for free—by visiting TheGreatCoursesPlus.com/amicus. 

Podcast production by Tony Field.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan. Petitioner Montanile was injured by a drunk driver and his benefits plan paid more than $120,000 in medical expenses. He later sued the drunk driver, obtaining a $500,000 settlement. The benefits plan, governed by the Employees Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), contained a subrogation clause requiring a participant to reimburse the plan for medical expenses if the participant later recovers money from a third party for his or her injuries. When respondent plan administrator/fiduciary sought reimbursement from Montanile’s litigation settlement, he refused, and the administrator sued in federal court, seeking an equitable lien on any settlement funds or property in Montanile’s possession. Montanile argued that because he had by then spent almost all of the settlement, no identifiable fund existed against which to enforce the lien. The District Court rejected Montanile’s argument and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed that judgment. -- By a vote of 8-1 the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit, holding that when a participant dissipates the whole settlement on nontraceable items, the fiduciary cannot bring a suit to attach the participant’s general assets under ERISA §502(a)(3) because the suit is not one for “appropriate equitable relief.” The Court deemed it unclear whether Montanile had in fact dissipated all of his settlement in this manner, however, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings. -- Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito joined the majority opinion except for Part III-C. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Daniel R. Thies, who is an associate at Sidley Austin LLP.

On February 23, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics, which was consolidated with Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer. Both of these cases involved claims of patent infringement relating to the sale or marketing of various inventions. Both also involved a determination by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that an award of enhanced damages for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 284 was not appropriate, after applying the Circuit’s two-part objective/subjective test for willful or bad-faith infringement set forth in In re Seagate Tech., LLC. -- The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Federal Circuit’s refusal to allow enhanced damages absent a finding of willfulness under its two-part test contravenes the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 284, given the Supreme Court’s recent rejection of an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. § 285, the statute providing for attorneys' fee awards in exceptional cases. -- To discuss the case, we have Gregory Dolin who is Associate Professor of Law and Co-Director, Center for Medicine and Law at University of Baltimore School of Law.

On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, a case giving rise to a dispute over the scope of federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction. A group of corporations whose food perished in a warehouse fire sued the warehouse owner, currently known as Americold Realty Trust, in Kansas state court. Americold then removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, which accepted jurisdiction and resolved the dispute in favor of Americold. On appeal, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the district court had lacked jurisdiction. Although the parties argued that diversity jurisdiction existed because the suit involved citizens of different states, the Tenth Circuit disagreed. As a trust and not a corporation, the court reasoned, Americold’s citizenship depended on that of its members, including shareholders. Given the lack of evidence regarding the shareholders’ citizenship, the court held, the parties had failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs were citizens of different states than the defendants. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Tenth Circuit, holding that for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of an unincorporated entity depends on the citizenship of all of its members. Under Maryland law a real estate investment trust is held and managed for the benefit of its shareholders, the Court explained, so Americold’s members include its shareholders. Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous court. -- To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an attorney with Robinson Bradshaw in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.

On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez. This case concerns a complaint by Jose Gomez that Campbell-Ewald Company, a marketing consultant for the U.S. Navy, allowed a third-party vendor to send him unsolicited text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case presents two questions for the Supreme Court: (1) whether a case becomes moot when a plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief on his claim, including in a class action, and (2) whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity for government contractors is limited to claims arising out of property damage caused by public works projects. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had held that Gomez’s individual and class claims were not mooted, and that Campbell-Ewald was not entitled to derivative sovereign immunity. -- By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit, holding that (1) an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case, so the district court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the plaintiff’s complaint, and (2) a federal contractor is not entitled to immunity from suit for its violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it violates both federal law and the government's explicit instructions. Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgement. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined. Justice Alito also filed a dissenting opinion. -- To discuss the case, we have Mark Chenoweth, who is General Counsel at Washington Legal Foundation.

On March 2, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Whole Woman’s Health and other Texas abortion providers sued Texas officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against a state law requiring that physicians who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where the abortion is performed, and requiring that abortion facilities satisfy the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers (“ASC”s). The district court enjoined enforcement of both requirements “as applied to all women seeking a previability abortion,” and as applied to abortion facilities in McAllen and El Paso, but dismissed claims that the law violated equal protection and effected an unlawful delegation. -- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the equal protection and unlawful delegation claims, and affirmed but modified the injunction of the ASC and admitting privileges requirements as applied to the McAllen facility. The Court vacated the district court’s injunction of the admitting privileges requirement as applied to “all women seeking a previability abortion,” however, and reversed the injunction of the ASC requirement on its face (and in the context of medication abortion), as well as the injunction of the admitting privileges and ASC requirements as applied to the El Paso facility. As a result, the Texas law was to remain in effect statewide--except for the ASC requirement as applied to the Whole Woman’s Health abortion facility in McAllen, and the admitting privileges requirement as applied to a particular doctor when working at the McAllen facility. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, stayed issuance of the mandate on the Fifth Circuit’s judgment, and that stay currently remains in place pending issuance of the written judgment of the Supreme Court. Thus, the district court’s original injunctions against the Texas law remain in effect for now. -- There are two questions before the Supreme Court: (1) Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a court errs by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government’s interest in promoting health; and (2) whether the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would (according to petitioners) cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest. -- To discuss the case, we have Roger Severino who is Director, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation.

On March 1, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz. Between 2003 and 2007 Husky International Electronics sold and delivered electronic device components worth more than $160,000 to Chrysalis Manufacturing Corp. Chrysalis, then under the financial control of Daniel Ritz, failed to pay for the goods and Ritz encouraged the transfer of funds from Chrysalis to various other companies. Ritz held substantial ownership stakes in these companies, which had not given reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the Chrysalis funds. -- In May 2009, Husky sued Ritz in federal district court, seeking to hold him personally liable for Chrysalis’s debt. Ritz filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, and Husky then filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court alleging actual fraud, to preclude a discharge of Ritz’s debts. The bankruptcy court ruled that Husky had failed to prove actual fraud, however, and the district court affirmed that decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit likewise affirmed the lower court judgments, finding no record evidence of a false representation by the debtor, which the Fifth Circuit deemed a necessary predicate to establish actual fraud. -- The question now before the Supreme Court is whether the “actual fraud” bar to discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code applies only when the debtor has made a false representation, or whether the bar also applies when the debtor has deliberately obtained money through a fraudulent-transfer scheme that was actually intended to cheat a creditor. -- To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, who is a visiting scholar at Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law.

On February 24, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the consolidated cases Hughes v. Talen Energy Marketing and CPV Maryland, LLC v. Talen Energy Marketing. -- In this case, the Supreme Court considers whether Maryland encroached on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) rate-setting power when directing its local electricity distribution companies, via a “Generation Order,” to enter into a fixed-rate contract with an energy provider selected through a bidding process. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland’s Generation Order was preempted by federal law because it effectively set the rates the producer would receive for sales resulting from a regional auction overseen by FERC, and in effect also extended a three-year fixed price period set under the Federal Power Act to twenty years. -- The questions before the Supreme Court are: (1) Whether, when a seller offers to build generation and sell wholesale power on a fixed-rate contract basis, the Federal Power Act field-preempts a state order directing retail utilities to enter into the contract; and (2) whether FERC’s acceptance of an annual regional capacity auction preempts states from requiring retail utilities to contract at fixed rates with sellers who are willing to commit to sell into the auction on a long-term basis. -- To discuss the case, we have James Coleman, who is Assistant Professor at University of Calgary Law School.

It was a big week at SCOTUS, as a newly-balanced Court turned to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, its first abortion case in nine years. We discuss the case with legal scholar Pamela Karlan and listen to some highlights from oral arguments.

Amicus is sponsored by Casper, an online retailer of premium mattresses for a fraction of the price. Casper mattresses come with free delivery and returns within a

100-day period. And get 50 dollars toward any mattress purchase by visiting

Casper.com/amicus and using the promo code AMICUS.

And by Amazon. Detective Harry Bosch is back on the new season of Amazon’s Original Series Bosch, based on the best selling novels by Michael Connelly. Stream the new season on March 11th on Amazon Prime Video.

Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members. Consider signing up today! Members get bonus segments, exclusive member-only podcasts, and more. Sign up for a free trial today here. 

Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Our email is amicus@slate.com. 

Podcast production by Tony Field.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On March 30, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Welch v. United States. Police entered Gregory Welch’s apartment believing that a robbery suspect was on the premises, and after he consented to search they located a gun and ammunition that Welch later identified as his own. He was subsequently arrested and pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Because Welch had three prior felony convictions, the district court determined that the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) required that he be sentenced to a minimum of 15 years in prison. Welch appealed, arguing that his conviction for robbery in Florida state court did not qualify as a predicate offense for the purposes of ACCA because, at the time he was convicted, Florida state law allowed for a robbery conviction with a lower level of force than the federal law required to qualify as a predicate offense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, however, affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that the minimum elements for conviction under the Florida law established a “serious risk of physical injury to another” and, therefore, qualified it as a predicate offense for purposes of ACCA. Welch’s subsequent attempt to obtain habeas relief from the district court was denied, and the Eleventh Circuit rejected his appeal, but the Supreme Court granted certiorari. -- The two questions before the Supreme Court are: (1) Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015)—which held that the residual clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague—announced a new “substantive” rule of constitutional law that is retroactively applicable in an initial motion to vacate a federal prisoner’s ACCA-enhanced sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255(a); and (2) Whether petitioner’s conviction for robbery under Florida state law qualifies as a violent felony that supports a sentence enhancement under the ACCA. -- To discuss the case, we have Richard E. Myers II, who is the Henry Brandis Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law.