On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Gelboim v. Bank of America Corporation. This case concerns whether and in what circumstances the dismissal of all claims in one civil action that had been consolidated with other cases for pre-trial purposes, in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding, is final and immediately appealable?
In an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held unanimously that a lower court order dismissing petitioners' case in its entirety removed petitioners from the consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding, thereby triggering their statutory right to appeal. The judgment of the Second Circuit was reversed and the case remanded.
To discuss the case, we have Erik Zimmerman, who is an Olin-Searle-Smith Fellow and Constitutional Law Center Fellow at Stanford Law School.
On January 21, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project. This case involves the Fair Housing Act, which states that it is illegal to "refuse to sell or rent...or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race." The question in this case is whether disparate impact claims, which permit liability based on disproportionate impact in the absence of express discriminatory intent, are allowed under the Fair Housing Act.
To discuss the case, we have Hon. Todd F. Gaziano, Executive Director, Washington, D.C. Center and Senior Fellow in Constitutional Law, Pacific Legal Foundation.
On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This case involves the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Title VII duty to investigate claims of discrimination levied against an employer and to make good faith efforts to eliminate discriminatory employment practices before filing suit against that employer. The question this case asks is whether and to what extent a court may enforce the EEOC's duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.
To discuss the case, we have Mr. Paul Mirengoff, Mr. Mirengoff is a retired attorney in Washington, D.C. and is a blogger at powerlineblog.com.
On December 15, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Heien v. North Carolina, the question in this case was 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.
In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify a stop under the Fourth Amendment. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion. The decision of the Supreme Court of North Carolina was affirmed.
To discuss the case, we have Ryan Scott, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. The question in this case was whether, under the terms of the Truth in Lending Act, a borrower may rescind a mortgage transaction merely by notifying the lender in writing within three years of the finalization of the transaction, or must instead file a lawsuit within that same time period.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia for a unanimous Court, the Court held that the borrower need only provide written notice to the lender within the three-year period, not file suit. The decision of the Eighth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
To discuss the case, we have John Ohlendorf, who is an associate at the law firm Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.