Law Commons^™

Amicus Brief Of Native Nations In Montana, Kathryn Shanley, And Denise Juneau, Held V. State Of Montana, Montana Supreme Court Docket No. Da 23-0575, Monte Mills, Jeremiah Chin, Mia Montoya Hammersley, Fredrick Ole Ikayo, Clare Derby, Natasha De La Cruz

Court Briefs

Montana’s Constitution specifically recognizes and protects the right of Native Nations and Indigenous individuals to preserve and sustain their cultural traditions through the education of future generations. These rights are inherently tied to the right to a clean and healthful environment.

Brief Of Legal Scholars As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Becerra V. San Carlos Apache Tribe, Becerra V. Northern Arapaho Tribe, U.S. Supreme Court Docket Nos. 23-250 & 23-253, Gregory Ablavsky, Seth Davis, Patty Ferguson-Bohnee, Ethan J. Leib, Dan Lewerenz, Nazune Menka, Monte Mills, Richard Monette, Joseph William Singer, Gerald Torres, Rebecca Tsosie

Court Briefs

Congress has enacted into law thousands of statutory provisions containing rules of construction. These rules direct courts to the permissible interpretations of the statutes that Congress enacts.

With respect to the self-determination contracts between Indian tribes and the United States at issue in these cases, the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA) prescribes two interpretive rules that serve as congressional directives to this Court. First, each provision of the self-determination contract must be construed liberally for the benefit of the tribe. Second, the same is true of the statute itself: each provision of the ISDA must be construed liberally …

Brief Of Tribal Nations And Indian Organizations As Amici Curiae In Support Of The Navajo Nation, U.S. Supreme Court Docket No. 21-1484, Monte Mills, Heather D. Whiteman Runs Him, Dylan R. Hedden-Nicely, John E. Echohawk, Steven C. Moore, David L. Gover, Joe M. Tenorio, Ada Montague Stepleton, Morgan E. Saunders, Wesley James Furlong, Sydney Tarzwell

Court Briefs

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: The Winters Doctrine recognizes and gives effect to the promises made by the United States in treaties, congressionally ratified agreements, and executive orders that Tribal Nations would retain permanent and viable homelands. These promises, made in exchange for the Tribal Nations’ cession of billions of acres of land, paved the way for the non-Indian settlement of the West. Although every tribal homeland is unique, invariably, each requires water to be livable. Applying the canons of construction this Court has developed as part of its federal Indian law jurisprudence, as well as the history and circumstances surrounding the …

Reply Brief For Petitioners, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

Brief For Respondents, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Robert J. Tolchin

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Petitioners, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

Brief In Opposition, Twitter, Inc. V. Taamneh, 143 S.Ct. 1206 (2023) (No. 21.1496), Eric Schnapper, Keith L. Altman, Daniel W. Weininger

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Gonzalez V. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333), Eric Schnapper, Robert J. Tolchin, Keith L. Altman, Daniel Weininger

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. …

Amicus Curiae Brief Of Professors Karen Boxx And Gregory Hicks, May V. County Of Spokane, 199 Wash.2d 389 (2022) (No. 99598-2), Karen Boxx, Greg Hicks

Court Briefs

This case raises the difficult question of how to deal with the stain of racial restrictive covenants that have long been rendered unenforceable and illegal but remain in the property records. Petitioner is seeking to have such an offending covenant physically removed from the public records relating to his real property under authority of former Washington statute RCW 49.60.227 (2018). Since Petitioner has begun this quest, the legislature amended RCW 49.60.227 to provide a more detailed procedure to address the remnants of racism in property records, but this new procedure does not afford Petitioner the remedy that he sought under …

Brief In Opposition. Idaho Department Of Corrections V. Fuller, 138 S.Ct. 1345 (2018) (No. 17-959), Eric Schnapper, Ericka Birch, Kass Hartstad

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED The court of appeals concluded that a reasonable jury could find that actions by supervisors at the Idaho Department of Corrections created a hostile work environment. Petitioner does not seek review of that holding. The question presented is: Did the court of appeals err in concluding that the record contained sufficient evidence to permit a reasonable jury to infer that the actions of those supervisors were gender-based?

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Kirk V. Invesco, Limited, 138 S.Ct. 1164 (2018) (No. 17-762), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 4618, 2017 Wl 5665441, Eric Schnapper, Nitin Sud

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that covered employees who work more than 40 hours in a week must generally be paid overtime at a rate one and one-half times their regular rate. To assure compliance with that overtime rule, the Act and governing regulations require employers to maintain records of all hours worked by covered employees. If an employer has failed to keep the legally required records, the burden on the employee under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co. is simply to "produce[] sufficient evidence to show the amount and extent of that work as a matter …

Reply Brief. Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …

Petitioner's Reply Brief. Riley V. Elkhart Community Schools, 137 S.Ct. 1328 (No. 16-533), 2017 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 593, 2017 Wl 712023, Eric Schnapper, Robin Remley

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discrimination in promotion or hiring, is a plaintiff required to show that the position in question was filled by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) In Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, this Court held that in a case of alleged discrimination in hiring or promotion, a plaintiff “might seek to demonstrate that [the employer's] claim to have promoted a better qualified applicant was pretextual by showing that she was in fact better qualified than the person chosen for the position.” Ash v. Tyson Foods, Inc. recognized that the …

Brief For Respondents. County Of Los Angeles V. Mendez, 137 S.Ct. 1539 (2017) (No. 16-3690), 2017 Wl 696103, Eric Schnapper, Rachel Lee, Leonard J. Feldman, Sara Berry

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Does the legal framework set out in Grnham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), apply to actions by police that foreseeably create a need for the use of force?

2. In an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, where a house search that violates the Fourth Amendment results in the shooting of an innocent resident who did not know that the intruders were sheriff’s deputies, does a resident’s nonculpable response to the intrusion constitute a superseding cause that bars relief for the residents’ injuri

Reply Brief. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 9443770, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group?* (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, J. Arthur Smith, Iii, Justin M. Delaune

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory termination, is a plaintiff required to show that he was replaced by someone outside his or her protected group? (2) Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a plaintiff prior to:bringing a civil action must first file a charge with the EEOC, usually within 300 days of the action complained of. The Question Presented is: Where a claimant files a timely Title VII charge asserting that employer conduct was the result of a particular unlawful motive, may the claimant after the end of the charge-filing period …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Lavigne V. Cajun Deep Foundations, L.L.C., 137 S.Ct. 1328 (2017) (No. 16-464), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3646, 2016 Wl 5929996, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief Of Petitioners. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1645, 2016 Wl 1555013+A12, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") prohibits state and local governments from imposing "a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution . . . unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person": (1) "is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest," and (2) "is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l(a). The Question Presented is: Whether RLUIPA requires that prison officials actually consider and demonstrate a sufficient basis for rejecting widely …

Brief In Opposition. City Of Houston V. Zamora, 136 S.Ct. 2009 (2016) (No. 15-868), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 1615, 2016 Wl 1445907, Eric Schnapper, Kim Ogg, Scott Poerschke, Randall L. Kallinen, Robert Mcknight, Jr.

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does the liability standard in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, 562 U.S. 411 (2011), apply to retaliation claims under Title VII? (2) Under Staub, where a supervisor for an unlawful purpose has engaged in conduct that was intended to and did in fact cause an adverse employment action, the existence of an independent investigation by other officials does not limit liability unless that investigation reveals a new basis for that adverse action that is “unrelated” to the conduct of the supervisor. The second question presented is: Should the Court overturn the decision in Staub, and hold that an …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Flowers V. Troup County School District, 136 S.Ct. 2510 (2016) (No. 15-1144), 2016 Wl 1042969, Eric Schnapper, Ruth W. Woodling

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., held in an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, that a plaintiff may ordinarily prove the existence of an unlawful motive by establishing a prima facie case and demonstrating the falsity of the employer’s proffered explanation for the disputed employment, and that a plaintiff who does so need not also offer some other additional evidence of discrimination. The Eleventh Circuit held in this Title VII action that the existence of an unlawful motive may not be established in that manner; a plaintiff who establishes a prima facie case and the …

Petion For A Writ Of Certiorari. Knight V. Thompson, 136 S.Ct. 2534 (2016) (No. 15-999), 2016 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 542, 2016 Wl 447654, Eric Schnapper, Mark Sabel, Peter Fruin, Randall C. Marshall, Roy S. Haber

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED In Holt v. Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015), this Court held that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”), renders unlawful an absolute ban on inmates' wearing a beard for religious reasons. The Eleventh Circuit, subsequent to and despite this Court's decision in Holt, rejected a RLUIPA challenge to Alabama's similarly inflexible policy prohibiting all male inmates from wearing long hair for religious reasons. A vast majority of states, the District of Columbia, and all federal prisons accommodate inmates whose religious practices include wearing beards or long hair. The Question Presented is: Whether Alabama's …

Reply Brief. Frew V. Traylor, 136 S.Ct. 1159 (2016) (No. 15-483), Eric Schnapper, Timothy B. Garrigan, Timothy David Craig, Jane Swanson

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Litigation regarding the legal responsibilities of large institutions, such as schools or prisons, is frequently resolved by consent decree. The widespread use of such consent decrees regularly gives rise to inter-related disputes about how to interpret provisions of those decrees, and about when the decrees themselves have been satisfied and may thus be dissolved. In the instant case the Fifth Circuit, expressly disagreeing with the standards applied in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, interpreted in a narrow manner, and then ordered dissolution of, key provisions earlier agreed to by Texas that protect the rights of millions of indigent …

Reply Brief For Petitioner. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3941, 2015 Wl 6748880, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Frew V. Traylor, 136 S.Ct. 1159 (2016) (No. 15-483), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3632, 2015 Wl 6083505, Eric Schnapper, Timothy B. Garrigan, Timothy David Craig, Jane Swanson

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Litigation regarding the legal responsibilities of large institutions, such as schools or prisons, is frequently resolved by consent decree. The widespread use of such consent decrees regularly gives rise to inter-related disputes about how to interpret provisions of those decrees, and about when the decrees themselves have been satisfied and may thus be dissolved. In the instant case the Fifth Circuit, expressly disagreeing with the standards applied in the Sixth and Ninth Circuits, interpreted in a narrow manner, and then ordered dissolution of, key provisions earlier agreed to by Texas that protect the rights of millions of indigent …

Brief For Respondents. Tyson Foods, Inc. V. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036 (2016) (No. 14-1146), 2015 Wl 5634431, David C. Frederick, Derek T. Ho, Matthew A. Seligman, Robert L. Wiggins Jr., Scott Michelman, Scott L. Nelson, Allison M. Zieve, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether, in this class and collective action for wage-and-hour violations arising out of an employer's failure properly to compensate employees for time spent donning and doffing protective equipment and walking between sites where work was performed, the district court abused its discretion in granting certification where plaintiffs proceeded to prove the amount of work they did using individual timesheet evidence and representative proof concerning donning, doffing, and walking times in accordance with Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946).

2. Whether a class or collective action may be certified when it contains members …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Paske V. Fitzgerald, 136 S.Ct. 536 (2015) (No. 15-162), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2659, 2015 Wl 4651685, Eric Schnapper, Margaret A. Harris

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green established a common method of analyzing evidence of an unlawful discriminatory motive. If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for the disputed action; where the defendant has done so, the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that the proffered purpose was a pretext for discrimination. This Court has repeatedly explained that the burden of establishing a prima facie case is “not onerous.” United States Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens held, in the context of a case which had gone to …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari. Rochow V. Life Insurance Company Of North America, 136 S. Ct. 480 (2015) (No. 15-163), 2015 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 2657, Eric Schnapper, Erik W. Scharf, John J. Cooper

Court Briefs

QUESTION PRESENTED When a benefit plan, in violation of ERISA, wrongfully denies or delays payment of a benefit, the court may award relief because of the improper delay in the payment of that benefit. The question presented is: Should 'the amount of a remedy based on the improper delay in the payment of a benefit be based on: (1) only the amount needed to redress the loss that the beneficiary sustained as a result of the wrongful delay (the rule in the Sixth Circuit), (2) either the amount needed to redress the loss that the beneficiary sustained as a result …

Brief Amicus Curiae For The National Employment Lawyers Association In Support Of Petitioner. Green V. Brennan, 136 S.Ct. 1769 (2016) (No. 14-613), 2015 Wl 4381189, Roberta L. Steele, Eric Schnapper

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Reply Brief. Hildebrand V. Allegheny County (No. 14-363), 2014 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs Lexis 3445, Eric Schnapper, Marjorie E. Crist

Court Briefs

No abstract provided.