Source: Case information was gleaned from SCOTUSblog.com.

Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido [Argued: October 1, 2018; Decided: November 6, 2018]

Holding: State and local governments are covered employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, regardless of the number of employees they have.

Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Brett Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Note: This could affect a lot of smaller U.S. police departments and could require changes to an agency’s hiring practices.

Gundy v. United States [Argued: October 2, 2018; Decided: June 20, 2019]

Holding: The judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that 34 U. S. C. §20913(d)—which requires the U.S. attorney general to apply the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act’s registration requirements as soon as feasible to offenders convicted before the statute’s enactment—is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority is affirmed.

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Elena Kagan.

Note: The outcome of the case could have greatly influenced the broad delegations of power that Congress has made to the federal executive branch, but it did not. However, due to the strong dissent, this is an issue which could resurface in the future.

Madison v. Alabama [Argued: October 2, 2018; Decided: February 27, 2019]

Holding: The Eighth Amendment may permit executing a prisoner even if he cannot remember committing his crime, but it may prohibit executing a prisoner who suffers from dementia or another disorder rather than psychotic delusions.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan. Justice Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Note: This U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s barring cruel and unusual punishment deals with whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits executing a person for a crime they do not remember. This is a case to be aware of, but it is primarily for your city, county, or district attorney to deal with.

United States v. Stitt and United States v. Sims  [Argued: 10-9-18 Decided: 12-10-18]

Holding: The term “burglary” in the Armed Career Criminal Act includes burglary of a structure or vehicle that has been adapted or is customarily used for overnight accommodation.

Judgment: Stitt: Reversed, 9-0, and Sims: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, both opinions by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Note: Both defendants were convicted in federal court of unlawfully possessing a firearm and found by the district court in each case to have prior state burglary convictions requiring the imposition of a mandatory 15-year minimum prison term under the Armed Career Criminal Act. While “burglary” is a prior felony for purposes of the act, the Sixth and Eighth Circuits each held that the state law definitions that extended to burglary of structures or vehicles adapted or customarily used for overnight accommodation did not fall within the act. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the statutory term “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act includes burglary of a structure or vehicle that has been adapted or is customarily used for overnight accommodation.

Stokeling v. United States [Argued: October 9, 2018; Decided: January 15, 2019]

Holding: The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance. In other words, minimal force is enough.

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined.

Note: In this case, Stokeling objected that his prior Florida robbery conviction, which involved a necklace snatching, was not a “violent felony.” He argued it did not qualify because under Florida law robbery does not have

“as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.” Under Florida law, robbery is defined as “the taking of money or other property . . . from the person or custody of another, . . . when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear. The Florida Supreme Court has explained that the “use of force” necessary to commit robbery requires “resistance by the victim that is overcome by the physical force of the offender.”

 Bucklew v. Precythe [Argued: November 6, 2018; Decided: April 1, 2019]

Holding: Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol— that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition—fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined as to all but Part III. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.

Note: The court held that when a convict sentenced to death challenges the state’s method of execution due to claims of excessive pain, the person must show that other alternative methods of execution exist and clearly demonstrate they would cause less pain than the state-determined one.

Timbs v. Indiana [Argued: November 28, 2018; Decided: February 20, 2019]

Holding: The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.

Note: The Supreme Court did not offer any tests in their opinions as to how to measure when fines are deemed excessive, a matter that is expected to require additional case law to establish. Justice Ginsburg’s opinion did suggest that the seizure of Timbs’ Land Rover was disproportionate to the crime, but this was to be resolved by the lower court. This decision has the potential to significantly affect the use of asset forfeiture at state and local levels, especially when there are no criminal charges filed. Only time will tell how far-reaching this decision will be and how many state forfeiture laws will have to be rewritten. This could result in significantly less funding from asset forfeitures and negatively impact countless law enforcement agencies.

Gamble v. United [Argued: December 6, 2018; Decided: June 17, 2019]

Holding: The dual-sovereignty doctrine—under which two offenses are not the “same offense” for double jeopardy purposes if prosecuted by separate sovereigns—is upheld.

Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Alito. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Gorsuch filed dissenting opinions.

Note: Although there was no lower-court split of authorities on this question, scholars have long criticized this “separate sovereigns” exception to the double-jeopardy clause, and even though the court left everything intact this time, there was a very strong dissent both by a liberal justice and a conservative justice, so this could be revisited in the future. Definitely a technical legal issue to watch out for in the coming years if the court agrees to hear a case involving this issue again.

Nieves v. Bartlett [Argued: November 26, 2018; Decided: May 28, 2019]

Holding: Because police officers had probable cause to arrest Russell Bartlett, his First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim fails as a matter of law.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Thomas, who joined the opinion of the Supreme Court except as to Part II–D, filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.

Note: Probable cause generally defeats a retaliatory arrest claim, except for when officers under the circumstances would typically exercise their discretion not to make an arrest. While some were surprised at the court’s holding, it was not really much different than their decision in Whren v. United States, where the court, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, held

The unanimous Court held that as long as officers have a reasonable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, they may stop any vehicle… Thus, since an actual traffic violation occurred, the ensuing search and seizure of the offending vehicle was reasonable, regardless of what other personal motivations the officers might have had for stopping the vehicle.¹

The court stuck with their previous rational that if an officer had a lawful reason for a traffic stop, and now an arrest, it would not entertain second guessing what the officer was thinking at the time of the arrest thereby sticking with a purely objective test like that established in Whren.

United States v. Haymond [Argued: February 26, 2019; Decided: June 26, 2019]

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s judgment—that 18 USC. §3583(k)’s last two sentences are unconstitutional and unenforceable—is vacated, and the case is remanded.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh joined.

Note: This was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k)’s five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for certain sex offenses committed by federally supervised releasees as unconstitutional unless the charges are proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Flowers v. Mississippi [Argued; March 20, 2019; Decided: June 21, 2019]

Holding: The trial court at Curtis Flowers’ sixth murder trial committed clear error in concluding that the state’s peremptory strike of a particular black prospective juror was not motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined as to Parts I, II, and III.

Note: It is hard to believe the facts in this case and how many times the Mississippi prosecutors got it wrong. In the six trials prosecuting Flowers for murder, the previous five of which ended in mistrials or vacated convictions according to newspaper accounts and court records, the state struck almost all of the prospective black jurors. According to Oyez

 the Court found that the State’s history of peremptory strikes in Flowers’s first four trials strongly supported the conclusion that the State’s use of peremptory strikes in his sixth trial was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. The State appeared “relentless” in trying to strike all black jurors to have an all-white jury try Flowers.²

Mitchell v. Wisconsin [Argued: April 23, 2019; Decided: June 27, 2019]

Holding: The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s judgment—affirming the drunk-driving convictions of Gerald Mitchell, who was administered a warrantless blood test while he was unconscious—is vacated, and the case is remanded.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg and Kagan joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion.

Note: Police do not generally need a court-issued warrant to draw blood from an unconscious criminal suspect. This will help police officers gather the evidence needed to keep drunk drivers off the road. It should be noted that facts and circumstances like these normally fit under the “Exigent Circumstances Rule,” so chiefs would be wise to review their training in this area.

Rehaif v. United States [Argued: April 23, 2019; Decided: June 21, 2019]

Holding: In a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §922(g) and §924(a)(2), the government must prove both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined.

Note: The Supreme Court made it harder for the federal government to secure convictions for firearms charges in all cases even though this case specifically dealt with undocumented immigrants in possession of a firearm by finding that prosecutors must prove not only that someone knew that he or she possessed a firearm or ammunition, but also that the person knew his or her immigration status made prohibited possession of the item. Requiring a higher showing of culpability helps “separate those who understand the wrongful nature of their act from those who do not,” Justice Breyer wrote. Police investigations must now show that defendants to be charged knew that they were prohibited from having or possessing the item they are being charged with possession of.

City of Escondido, California v. Emmons [Not Argued; Decided: January 7, 2019]

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.

Judgment: Reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded in a per curiam opinion.

Note: Qualified immunity is such a very important defense for all police officers that cases like this are always important to watch. This case seems to be a good decision for officers since the Supreme Court again let the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals know they got this one wrong and to relook at this case and its prior qualified immunity decisions. As the late Chief Justice Earl Warren once said: “If it is a mistake of the head and not the heart don’t worry about it, that’s the way we learn.”³ In other words, if an officer acts with the good faith belief that what he or she is doing is lawful and proper, then the qualified immunity defense will protect the officer even if it turns out later (with the advantage of 20/20 hindsight) that the officer was wrong in his or her beliefs. This is a must-watch case even on remand.

Notes:

¹ Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).

² Flowers v. Mississippi, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), facts of the case from Oyez.

³ Irving Stone, Earl Warren : A Great American Story (New York, NY: Prentice-Hall, 1948), 64.