On November 5, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Yates v. United States. This case concerns whether Mr. Yates was given fair notice that throwing undersized fish back into the Gulf of Mexico during the course of an investigation would violate the "document shredding provision" of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which makes it a crime for anyone who “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object” with the intent to impede or obstruct an investigation.
To discuss the case, we have Todd Braunstein who is Counsel at WilmerHale.
On November 5, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Johnson v. United States. This case concerns whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
To discuss the case, we have Richard Myers who is the Henry Brandis Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina School of Law.
On November 3, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. This case concerns Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which authorizes suit by a purchaser of securities issued under a registration statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission--if the registration statement “contained an untrue statement of material fact or omitted to state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary to make the statement therein not misleading.”
The question here is whether a Section 11 plaintiff may plead that a statement of opinion was “untrue” merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, as the Sixth Circuit has concluded, or whether the plaintiff also must allege that the statement was subjectively false – requiring allegations that the speaker’s genuinely held opinion was different from the one expressed – as the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have held.
To discuss the case, we have George Conway, who is a partner in the Litigation Department of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.
On October 8, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk. This case concerns whether time employees spend undergoing mandatory security screenings after work is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, which clarifies that certain activities are generally not compensable working time under the FLSA.
To discuss the case, we have Karen Harned, who is the Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.
On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Heien v. North Carolina. The question in this case is whether a police officer’s mistaken understanding of a law can provide the reasonable suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.
To discuss the case, we have Ryan Scott, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.