October Term 2022
Opinions authored by Justice Barrett during the term that began October 3, 2022.
-
United States v. Hansen
Question Presented: Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.
Holding: Title 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which criminalizes "encourag[ing] or induc[ing]" illegal immigration, forbids only the purposeful solicitation and facilitation of specific acts known to violate federal law and is not unconstitutionally overbroad.
-
Haaland v. Brackeen
Question Presented: Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act exceeds Congress's authority or violates anti-commandeering or equal-protection principles.
Holding: In child custody proceedings governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act, the court affirms the 5th Circuit's conclusion that ICWA is consistent with Congress's Article I authority, rejects petitioners' anticommandeering challenges under the Tenth Amendment, and finds the parties lack standing to litigate their other challenges to ICWA's placement preferences.
-
Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. Teamsters
Question Presented: Whether the NLRA preempts state tort claims for property damage caused during a strike.
Holding: The National Labor Relations Act did not preempt Glacier's state tort claims related to the destruction of company property during a labor dispute where the union failed to take reasonable precautions to avoid foreseeable and imminent danger to the property.
-
Dupree v. Younger
Question Presented: Whether a party must file a Rule 50 motion to preserve for appeal a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment.
Holding: A post-trial motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 is not required to preserve for appellate review a purely legal issue resolved at summary judgment.
-
Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
Question Presented: Whether an individual can be subject to liability for the fraud of another that is barred from discharge in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. (the "Bankruptcy Code") § 523(a)(2)(A), by imputation, without any act, omission, intent or knowledge of her own.
Holding: Pursuant to Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor like Kate Bartenwerfer who is liable for her partner's fraud cannot discharge that debt in bankruptcy, regardless of her own culpability.
-
Arellano v. McDonough
Question Presented: Whether the effective-date rule for veterans' disability benefits is subject to equitable tolling.
Holding: The statute is not subject to equitable tolling.
Concurring Opinions
Concurrences authored by Justice Barrett during October Term 2022.
-
Biden v. Nebraska
Question Presented: Whether the HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to cancel large amounts of student-loan principal and whether respondents have Article III standing.
Holding: The Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers.
Barrett's View: Justice Barrett wrote separately to explain her conception of the major questions doctrine. In her view, it is not a new or atextual substantive canon. Rather, it emphasizes the importance of context when a court interprets a delegation to an administrative agency. "Seen in this light, the major questions doctrine is a tool for discerning—not departing from—the text's most natural interpretation."
-
United States v. Texas
Question Presented: Whether Texas and Louisiana had standing to challenge federal immigration‑enforcement guidelines.
Holding: Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge immigration-enforcement guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security that prioritize the arrest and removal of certain noncitizens from the United States.
Barrett's View: Justice Barrett, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred in the judgment. She would have held that states lacked standing because a court could not redress their alleged injury, not because (as the majority held) the states had not asserted a “judicially cognizable interest.”
-
Samia v. United States
Question Presented: Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted confession that indirectly implicates a defendant violates the Confrontation Clause.
Holding: The admission of a nontestifying codefendant's confession did not violate the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause where the confession as modified did not directly inculpate the defendant but used the descriptor “other person” and the jury was instructed to consider the confession only as to the codefendant.
Barrett's View: Justice Barrett concurred to defend the majority's treatment of redacted codefendant confessions but wrote separately to push back on the dissent's historical account of the Confrontation Clause. She argued that the historical materials do not clearly establish the categorical rule the dissent proposed and cautioned against reading the founding-era record as far more determinate than it is. In her view, the Court's approach was more consistent with both precedent and the limited clarity of the historical evidence.
-
Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion Cty. v. Talevski
Question Presented: Whether Spending Clause statutes can create rights enforceable under §1983 and whether the FNHRA provisions at issue do so.
Holding: The provisions of the Federal Nursing Home Amendments Act of 1987 at issue unambiguously create rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and private enforcement under Section 1983 is compatible with the FNHRA's remedial scheme.
Barrett's View: Justice Barrett (joined by Chief Justice Roberts) concurred to emphasize that courts should tread carefully before concluding that Spending Clause statutes may be enforced through § 1983.
-
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
Question Presented: Whether California's Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause by regulating out‑of‑state pork production.
Holding: The judgment of the 9th Circuit, affirming the dismissal of a complaint challenging California's Proposition 12 under a dormant commerce clause rationale not grounded in an allegation that the law purposefully discriminates against out-of-state economic interests, is affirmed.
Barrett's View: Justice Barrett concurred in part. She agreed with the majority that the law could stand because the Court had no way to weigh its benefits and burdens without second-guessing the moral judgments of California voters.
Dissenting Opinions
Dissents authored by Justice Barrett during October Term 2022.
-
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern R. Co.
Question Presented: Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business in the state.
Holding: Pennsylvania's law requiring an out-of-state firm to subject itself to general jurisdiction in exchange for doing business in the commonwealth does not violate the Due Process Clause.
Barrett's View: Justice Barrett, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Kavanaugh, dissented from the Court's holding that a state can exercise general jurisdiction over a corporation based on its registration to do business in the state. She argued such an approach circumvents modern due process limits established in International Shoe and its progeny, and effectively restores the personal jurisdiction regime the Court has rejected in recent decades.
-
Counterman v. Colorado
Question Presented: Whether, to establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective “reasonable person” would regard the statement as a threat of violence.
Holding: The State must prove in true-threats cases that the defendant had some subjective understanding of his statements' threatening nature, but the First Amendment requires no more demanding a showing than recklessness.
Barrett's View: Justice Barrett (joined by Justice Thomas) dissented from the Court's requirement that the government prove a defendant had a subjective mental state to establish a “true threat.” She contended that First Amendment doctrine historically permitted an objective standard—whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as threatening—and warned that the majority's subjective rule lacks historical grounding and will make it substantially harder to prosecute serious threats.
-
Bittner v. United States
Question Presented: Whether non‑willful FBAR penalties apply per account or per annual report.
Holding: The Bank Secrecy Act's $10,000 maximum penalty for the nonwillful failure to file a compliant report accrues on a per-report, not a per-account, basis.
Barrett's View: Justice Barrett dissented (joined by Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, and Kagan). In her view, the most natural reading of the statute establishes that each failure to report a qualifying foreign account constitutes a separate reporting violation, so the Government can levy penalties on a per-account basis.
-
Cruz v. Arizona
Question Presented: Whether the Arizona Supreme Court's holding that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g) precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
Holding: The Arizona Supreme Court's holding below, that Lynch v. Arizona did not represent a “significant change in the law” for purposes of permitting John Montenegro Cruz to file a successive petition for state postconviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(g), is not an adequate state-law ground supporting that judgment.
Barrett's View: Justice Barrett (joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch) dissented. In her view, given the respect owed to state courts, the Supreme Court should have allowed the Arizona Supreme Court's decision to stand.