May 16, 2024
Mike Fox

University of Virginia School of Law faculty are available to speak to the media about the 2023 Supreme Court term. The list will be updated as more cases are announced.

​Some descriptions of cases or holdings are derived from SCOTUSBlog.

Acheson ​Hotels v. Laufer

Holding: Because Deborah Laufer voluntarily dismissed her pending suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Laufer’s case against Acheson is moot.

Bayefsky’s work addresses both the practical workings of legal institutions and underlying philosophical ideas such as dignity and equality. Her paper “Public-Law Litigation at a Crossroads: Article III Standing and ‘Tester’ Plaintiffs” analyzes Acheson Hotels. Bayefsky clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Bayefsky: “Acheson is a case about the Article III standing of a plaintiff with disabilities who sought to ‘test’ a hotel’s compliance with disability discrimination laws, though she lacked concrete plans to visit the hotel. The Supreme Court dismissed Acheson as moot for case-specific reasons, leaving unanswered the broader question about the standing of disability tester plaintiffs.”

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP

Holding: Because the District Court’s finding that race predominated in the design of South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District was clearly erroneous, the District Court’s racial-gerrymandering and vote-dilution holdings cannot stand.

Ross teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, constitutional theory, election law, administrative law and statutory interpretation. He co-directs the school’s Karsh Center For Law and Democracy.

Ross: “What I think the court has done is set up these cases in a way that’s easier for the state to make the argument that all we were doing was taking partisanship into account. We weren’t thinking about race. And to the extent that it's easier for the state to do that, it makes it harder for the court to police real instances of racial gerrymandering.” (Salon)

In the News

5.25.24 “Expert Says SCOTUS Ruling Subjects Black Voters to ‘Abuse.’ Clarence Thomas Wants To Go Even Further” (Salon)

 

Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St. LLC

Holding: A transportation worker need not work in the transportation industry to be exempt from coverage under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Verkerke teaches contracts, several employment law courses and a seminar on conservation planning and law. He directs the school’s Program for Employment and Labor Law Studies.

Verkerke: “The Bissonnette decision simply confirms the reasoning of Circuit City and Southwest Airlines v. Saxon. The court holds that the FAA § 1 exception is limited to transportation workers engaged in moving goods in interstate commerce, but those workers don’t have to be in the transportation industry. That’s an extremely modest extension of the § 1 exclusion from FAA coverage, and one that’s completely consistent with the rationale of Circuit City and Saxon. The focus remains on what duties ‘transportation workers’ perform rather than on the industry within which they do that work.”

 

 

City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson

Issue: Whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Jaffe directs the Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic and co-directs PLACE, the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment. He filed an amicus brief in Johnson.

 

 

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America

Holding: Congress’ statutory authorization allowing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to draw money from the earnings of the Federal Reserve System to carry out the bureau’s duties satisfies the appropriations clause.

Ahdout’s research centers on modern uses of judicial power through the lens of federal courts. She clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ahdout: “The court held that the CFPB’s funding structure comports with the appropriations clause. Congress’ power of the purse is one of its most potent tools, both politically and constitutionally. Part of that authority, the court determined, is the ability to decide how appropriations are structured. Federal courts have generally recognized that Congress’ appropriations power is integral to the constitutional plan and, therefore, is not a power onto which the federal courts lightly interpret additional constraints.”

Hwang’s research and teaching focus on business law, including mergers and acquisitions, corporate contracts and corporate governance. She is co-author of “Business Associations: A Modern Approach.”

Prakash’s scholarship focuses on separation of powers, particularly executive powers. He is the author of “The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument Against Its Ever-Expanding Powers” and “Imperial from the Beginning: The Constitution of the Original Executive.” He clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

In the News

 

 

Great Lakes Insurance SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.

Holding: Choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable in this case.

Stephan is an expert on international business, international dispute resolution and comparative law. He recently served as special counsel to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense.

 

 

Lindke v. Freed

Holding: A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the state’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.

Schauer is a world-renowned expert in the areas of constitutional law, evidence, legal reasoning, freedom of speech, and jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. His expertise has been demonstrated in hundreds of books, book chapters, articles, essays, classes and personal appearances.

 

 

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

Issue: Whether the court should overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

Jaffe directs the Environmental Law and Community Engagement Clinic and co-directs PLACE, the Program in Law, Communities and the Environment.

Ross teaches and writes in the areas of constitutional law, constitutional theory, election law, administrative law and statutory interpretation. He has served on the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court.

In the News

 

 

McElrath v. Georgia

Holding: The jury’s verdict that the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity of malice murder constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury’s other verdicts.

Richard J. Bonnie is Harrison Foundation Professor of Medicine and Law Emeritus at the Law School, having retired from teaching in 2023. He formerly served as director of the Institute of Law, Psychiatry and Public Policy at the University of Virginia.

Bonnie: “The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling rests on a traditional understanding of the insanity defense. The jury found that the 18-year-old defendant killed his mother because he was afraid that she was trying to poison him, a false belief rooted in a serious mental illness. As a result of his psychotic illness, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. The Georgia law jury found him ‘not guilty as a result of insanity’ and the court committed him to a secure hospital from which he will be released only when he is no longer dangerous. The Georgia attorney general had agued that the court could ignore the insanity verdict because the jury was confused by the jury instructions and the state should have a chance to try him again. However, a unanimous Supreme Court said that the insanity verdict was final and that it would violate the ‘double jeopardy’ clause of the Constitution to try him again.”   

 

 

Moody v. NetChoice LLC

Issue(s): (1) Whether the laws’ content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and (2) whether the laws’ individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.

Schragger’s scholarship focuses on the intersection of constitutional law and local government law, federalism, urban policy, and the constitutional and economic status of cities. He also writes about law and religion.

Stephan is an expert on international business, international dispute resolution and comparative law. He recently served as special counsel to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense.

In the News

 

 

Moore v. U.S.

Issue(s): Whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.

Stephan is an expert on international business, international dispute resolution and comparative law. He recently served as special counsel to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense.

 

 

NetChoice LLC v. Paxton

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech — or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.

Schragger’s scholarship focuses on the intersection of constitutional law and local government law, federalism, urban policy, and the constitutional and economic status of cities. He also writes about law and religion.

Stephan is an expert on international business, international dispute resolution and comparative law. He recently served as special counsel to the general counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense.

In the News

 

 

O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s judgment — that 42 U.S.C. § 1983’s state-action requirement was satisfied because of the “close nexus” between petitioners’ social media pages and their positions as public officials — is vacated, and the case is remanded in light of Lindke v. Freed.

Schauer is a world-renowned expert in the areas of constitutional law, evidence, legal reasoning, freedom of speech, and jurisprudence and the philosophy of law. His expertise has been demonstrated in hundreds of books, book chapters, articles, essays, classes and personal appearances.

 

 

U.S. v. Rahimi

Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.

Ballenger directs the Appellate Litigation Clinic. In private practice, he has argued three cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and dozens in the courts of appeals and trial courts across the country. Ballenger clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia.

Solum is an internationally recognized legal theorist who works in constitutional theory, procedure and the philosophy of law. Solum contributes to debates in constitutional theory and normative legal theory.

In the News

 

 

Vida​l v. Elster

Issue(s): Whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

Schragger’s scholarship focuses on the intersection of constitutional law and local government law, federalism, urban policy, and the constitutional and economic status of cities. He also writes about law and religion.

 

 

Wilkinson v. Garland

Holding: Federal courts have jurisdiction to review immigration judges’ determinations of mixed questions of law and fact in removal cases, ensuring that the federal courts to continue to oversee executive branch decisions to deport noncitizens.

Frost writes and teaches in the fields of immigration and citizenship law, federal courts and jurisdiction, and judicial ethics.

Frost: “Wilkinson argued that his deportation would cause ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ to his 7-year-old U.S. citizen son, qualifying him for relief from removal under federal law. The immigration judge, who is an employee of the Department of Justice, disagreed and ordered his removal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit refused to review that decision, concluding that federal law, 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), barred federal courts from reviewing a decision that turned on the facts of Wilkinson’s case. The Supreme Court reversed, explaining that federal courts have jurisdiction to review mixed questions of fact and law, which includes the application of the legal ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ standard to the facts of Wilkinson’s case. The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies that federal courts have the power to review immigration courts’ decisions involving legal standards, even when they require analysis of the facts of individual cases, reinvigorating the federal judicial role in removal cases.”
 

Founded in 1819, the University of Virginia School of Law is the second-oldest continuously operating law school in the nation. Consistently ranked among the top law schools, Virginia is a world-renowned training ground for distinguished lawyers and public servants, instilling in them a commitment to leadership, integrity and community service.

Media Contact