Cites CTS Corp. v. Waldburger — Federal law pre-empts state-law statutes of limitations in certain tort actions involving personal injury or property damage arising from the release of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminan
The case South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. concerned whether South Dakota could require out-of-state online retailers without a physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes on purchases by state residents. The Supreme Court held that the physical presence rule established in earlier cases like Quill Corp. v. North Dakota was incorrect and overruled those precedents, allowing states to impose such tax collection obligations on sellers meeting certain economic thresholds. The Court's reasoning was that the rule was not required by the Commerce Clause's substantial nexus test under Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, as due process allows taxation based on economic contacts, and the rule had become outdated in the era of e-commerce, leading to unfair competition and significant state revenue losses.
The case involved Fane Lozman, who alleged that the City of Riviera Beach arrested him during a city council meeting in retaliation for his prior protected speech criticizing city officials and filing an open-meetings lawsuit. Lozman sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 claiming the arrest violated the First Amendment, though he conceded probable cause existed for the arrest based on his refusal to stop speaking. The district court instructed the jury that Lozman needed to show the officer lacked probable cause and acted with retaliatory animus, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a verdict for the City on the ground that probable cause defeated such a claim. The Supreme Court held that the existence of probable cause does not categorically bar a First Amendment retaliation claim in these circumstances, where the arrest was allegedly taken pursuant to an official municipal policy of retaliation, distinguishing it from typical individual-officer arrest cases governed by precedents like Hartman v. Moore. The Court reasoned that applying the Mt. Healthy but-for causation test was appropriate here without the usual concerns about chilling law enforcement discretion.
The case involved a Colorado bakery owner who refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage, leading to a complaint under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the baker, finding a violation, and this was upheld by state courts. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Commission's handling of the case violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The core reasoning was that the Commission demonstrated hostility toward the baker's religious beliefs through disparaging comments by commissioners and inconsistent treatment compared to other cases involving offensive messages.
religious libertycivil rightsfree speechbusiness & regulatory
In Hughes v. United States, the Supreme Court considered whether a defendant who pleaded guilty under a binding Type-C plea agreement could obtain a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2) after the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowered the applicable Guidelines range. The Court held that eligibility exists if the Guidelines range served as part of the framework the district court used when imposing the sentence or accepting the agreement. The decision resolved conflicting lower-court approaches stemming from Freeman v. United States by emphasizing that the Guidelines remain central to federal sentencing calculations and discretion, even in the context of plea agreements that stipulate a specific sentence.
The case involved a Colorado bakery owner who refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on his religious beliefs opposing same-sex marriage, though he offered to sell other baked goods. The couple filed a complaint under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, leading the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and courts to rule that the refusal constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission's handling of the case violated the Free Exercise Clause. The core reasoning was that the Commission demonstrated impermissible hostility toward the owner's religious beliefs through disparaging comments by commissioners and inconsistent treatment of similar cases involving objections to anti-gay messages, failing to apply the law in a neutral manner toward religion.
The case involved a Colorado bakery owner who refused to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to his religious beliefs against same-sex marriage, leading to a complaint under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission and lower courts ruled against the baker, finding a violation of the law. The Supreme Court decided that the Commission's handling of the case violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The core reasoning was that the Commission demonstrated hostility toward the baker's religious views through derogatory comments by commissioners and inconsistent treatment compared to other bakers who refused to make cakes with anti-gay messages.
