In June 2018, plaintiff Luis Orlando Pérez-Greaux had his Arecibo, Puerto Rico home raided by the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD) after a period of surveillance. Pérez-Greaux was cooperative throughout the search, during which the PRPD found three kilograms (roughly 6.5 pounds) of cocaine, a digital scale, firearm periodicals, a gun holster, firearm magazines, separately packed bullets, and a .9mm Glock pistol that had been modified to function as a fully automatic machinegun. When questioned, Pérez-Greaux claimed that he had started drug trafficking earlier that year by packing cocaine with toys or various miscellaneous items and shipping it to the continental United States via the United States Postal Service. Although he provided two different accounts as to who gave him the firearm and how, in both he obtained the firearm from another individual who did not inform him that the firearm operated as a machinegun.

In March 2018, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Mark Solomon conducted a hearing regarding plaintiff Mollie Marie Flinton’s Social Security application. He had not been properly appointed at this time in compliance with the Constitution’s Appointment Clause, yet still issued a decision denying her benefits. After the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York remanded Flinton’s case to the Social Security Administration (SSA) for a near hearing in 2020, Flinton again appeared before ALJ Solomon for a hearing in August 2021. This time, however, ALJ Solomon had been ratified by the Commissioner of Social Security, now in compliance with the Constitution’s Appointment Clause. Pertinent to the case is the June 2018 Supreme Court decision in Lucia v. SEC, where the court held that ALJs of the SEC are “Officers of the United States” within the purview of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause. Since they were “inferior officers,” only “the President, a court of law, or a head of department” could properly appoint them to their positions.

After serving a state sentence for illegal use of a firearm, John Wayne Morgan Jr. was stopped by police in Louisiana in 2023 while riding in a vehicle containing four loaded guns, one of which was stolen. He was indicted on two federal charges: (1) being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and (2) possessing unregistered firearms, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d).

Morgan moved to dismiss both counts, arguing that the statutes violated the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). In this case, the Supreme Court established a two-step framework for Second Amendment issues. First, courts ask whether the Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue. If it does, the burden shifts to the government, and they must then demonstrate the existence of longstanding historical tradition of disarming those with criminal histories such as Morgan. Morgan contended that, under this test, the government could not justify § 922(g)(1) as applied to him because there was no founding-era tradition of disarming individuals based solely on a felony conviction rather than on demonstrated dangerousness.

In the 1924 case Hester v. United States, the Supreme Court made a distinction between so-called “open fields” and the areas afforded protection under the Fourth Amendment. This Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…” U.S. Const. amend. IV.  While not explicitly using the word “curtilage,” Justice Holmes refers to a distinction between the “special protection” given by the Fourth Amendment to the people [to be secure] in their 'persons, houses, papers and effects,'” and that this protection is not extended to the open fields. Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 59 (1924).

In 2017, Yogesh Pancholi agreed to a five-year voluntary exclusion from participating in Medicare and Medicaid programs after being accused of paying kickbacks to doctors for patient referrals in a civil False Claims Act suit. Within a year, Pancholi secretly purchased a home-health-care company, Shring Home Health Care, Inc., using a false identity and forged ownership documents. Between November and December 2018, Shring submitted nearly 900 fraudulent payment requests to Medicare totaling more than $2.7 million. Pancholi pocketed the proceeds and transferred them to India, where much of the money remains unrecovered. He was later charged with healthcare fraud, money laundering, witness tampering, and aggravated identity theft.

8 U.S.C. §1326 is a federal statute enacted in 1996 concerning the “reentry of removed aliens.” This statute provides a legal framework for non-citizen immigrants, referred to as aliens, who have been deported from the United States and wish to return or have already re-entered. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1326. This statute states that it is a federal offense for any non-citizen immigrant to attempt to re-enter, successfully re-enter, or be found in the United States after removal. See id.

Title IX was established fifty-three years ago to protect individuals from sex-based discriminatory practices in educational institutions that receive federal funding. The law prohibits these educational institutions from causing anyone to "be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity" based on that individual’s sex. 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a). 

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no state may “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Analyzing whether one’s due process has been violated is a two-step process. First, the court must determine whether one has been deprived of a protected liberty or property interest. Second, if the court has determined that such a deprivation has occurred, then the court must determine if that deprivation occurred without constitutionally sufficient process. See Bd. Agents of Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-571 (1972); Prieto v. Clarke, 780 F.3d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 2015).

In response to rapid technological advances in the broadcast industry, Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to “promote competition and relax statutory ownership restrictions.” The Act gave the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) broad authority to regulate broadcast ownership and required, under Section 202(h), that the FCC review its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they remain “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.” In conducting these reviews, the FCC considers whether existing rules promote competition, localism, and diversity of viewpoints.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. The Second Amendment is perhaps the most hotly debated provision of the Constitution. Whether focus is placed on the word “regulated,” “Militia,” “bear,” or “infringed,” interpretation of its plain language can yield a broad array of results. Because of this, there is a patchwork of regulations across states governing who may possess arms, what type, and in what locations.

The federal government imposes few firearms restrictions aside from those that regulate their sale or prohibit those found guilty of certain criminal conduct from purchasing or possessing firearms. It is one of the Commerce Clause restrictions that brings us today’s split.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and further provides that warrants must be backed by probable cause. The government cannot violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy” under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400, 406 (2012).

The free speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution can be limited by the state to regulate professional conduct that contains speech. For example, a state may require a professional to be licensed in their field before being able to legally practice within that state. This expresses the state’s interest in promoting an ethical industry that limits potential harm to its citizens. If said professional is not licensed, the state may suppress their ability to communicate certain services or information to potential clients.

In 2019, Theory Wellness, an operator of marijuana dispensaries, contracted with Sean O’Donovan, a local Massachusetts attorney, to provide government-relations assistance in support of their endeavor to receive approval from the city of Medford, MA, to sell marijuana. O’Donovan attempted to influence  Medford’s chief of police through his brother to procure the approval by promising him some of the business's future proceeds but was eventually caught. He was found guilty of two counts of honest-services wire fraud and one count of federal program bribery. 

Copy and paste. Copy and paste. Copy and ... click. "You're under arrest," a police officer says. You protest, "But literally everyone uses this code!" "Tell it to the judge," the officer responds. "Or maybe it's the jury. We'll see." Should you care? Your future may depend on who makes that call.

The right to trial by jury, codified in the Seventh Amendment, stands as one of the fundamental rights of American citizens. Jacob v. New York City, 315 U.S. 752, 752 (1942). Yet, it is not unlimited. As the modern world becomes more complex, so do disputes

The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits “discharge of any pollutant by any person” into the water of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Permit (“NPDES”). Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Port of Tacoma, 104 F.4th 95,95 (9th Cir. 2024). While the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has the authority to issue regulations implementing the CWA and NPDES permits, Congress authorized the EPA to delegate the power to the state, which it has done in almost all states. Id at 100.

The CWA creates a floor that the states must comply with. However, states have the authority to create regulations that raise that floor and issue NPDES under EPA-delegated authority, provided they still comply with the CWA requirements. Atl. States Legal Found. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353, 359 (2d Cir. 1993). Section 505 of the CWA allows citizens' suits for enforcement of NPDES permit violations. How far this power extends is where the circuit split lies.

At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a group of voters in Oregon City, Oregon sought to remove their mayor, Dan Holladay, from office. As a former electrician and longtime local activist, Holladay’s reputation as mayor soured due to a series of clashes with city commissioners and residents on issues ranging from his opposition to Oregon’s pandemic restrictions to his criticism of the Black Lives Matter protests. Voters in the small Portland suburb, led by Commissioner Adam Marl, launched a petition to have Holladay recalled. However, Oregon’s emergency orders limited public gatherings, which would make it more difficult for petitioners to gather the required signatures before the state’s 90-day deadline for recall petitions. In response, the petitioners sued the city seeking nominal damages, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief for future petitions.

Every composer in conservatory studies Igor Stravinsky. Pupils who admire his trailblazing compositional techniques might be surprised to discover his source of inspiration. Stravinsky famously declared that “a good composer does not imitate; he steals.” “Stealing” musical ideas has a rich and long history. Far from being forbidden, it has been a cornerstone in the evolution of music. J.S. Bach based his music on Lutheran hymns and drew heavily on Dietrich Buxtehude’s style. Johannes Brahms frequently invoked folk tunes by expanding musical structure laid out by his predecessors, notably Beethoven.

Oklean Jacob Ponle orchestrated a massive phishing scheme in 2019, leading to $8.03 million in actual losses and $51.3 million in intended losses to his victims. The scheme consisted of gaining unauthorized access to emails of company executives and using these emails to contact other employees with urgent demands to wire money, ostensibly for corporate needs, which ended up in the defendant’s pockets. Some of the wires were caught and reversed by banks; this is the source of the intended loss amount. After an FBI investigation and arrest, Ponle pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in federal court. In determining the range for his sentence, the district court consulted federal sentencing guidelines, which provide a different number of points added to a defendant’s base level depending on the monetary amount of loss.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. In pertinent part, the text of the Fourth Amendment provides that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Id.

On August 31, 2020, Oyoma Asinor was photographing a protest near Lafayette Park in the District of Columbia when he was arrested by the Metropolitan Police Department (“MPD”). The MPD took Mr. Asinor’s cell phone, camera, and other personal items incident to the arrest but released him later that day. Mr. Asinor was never charged with any crime resulting from the arrest. Despite Mr. Asinor’s repeated requests over the following months, the MPD withheld his property for nearly a year.

The Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) is a key U.S. labor law that sets minimum standards for the administration of private pension plans and creates causes of action for employee plan participants and beneficiaries. ERISA requires administrators to act solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries of the plan and establishes they must do so “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence” of a prudent man under the circumstances. 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B). Furthermore, any fiduciary who breaches that duty may be held personally liable for the loss. Id. § 1109(a). Fiduciaries found liable for breach are subject to equitable remedial relief determined by the court, up to and including removal. Id. In an ERISA-based cause of action for the loss, there must be both a breach of fiduciary duty and a financial loss to the beneficiary.