ABBREVIATED U.S. SUPREME COURT CHART
U.S. SUPREME COURT TERM: 2013-14
New filings=green font
Updates=red font
Amicus cases= yellow highlight
CASE/DOCKET NO. /DATE
FILED
Walczak v. Chicago Bd. of Educ., 13-1237,
4/10/14
Lynch v. Alabama, 13-1232, 4/10/14
Han v. Univ. of Dayton, 13-1171, 3/21/14
Pezhman v. Dep’t of Educ. of N.Y.C., 131100, 2/27/14
Updated: May 5, 2014
ISSUE
STATUS
Legal System: Under the Restatement (Second) of Judgments §26(a), has the respondent
waived its opportunity to raise res judicata as a defense in a federal proceeding where it
was aware that the EEOC charge that the federal proceedings was based on had been
pending for over three and a half years while the petitioner also pursued a state
administrative action in state court, but never objected during the state court proceedings
to the claims in the EEOC charge not being brought with the state administrative review
action until it was too late for the petitioner to consolidate her state and federal claims
Equity & Discrimination; 1) Do black public school children and their parents have standing
to challenge the validity under the equal protection clause of state constitutional provisions
adopted for the purpose of limiting the imposition on whites of property taxes that would
be used to educate black public school students; (2) Did the district judge in this case apply
the correct legal standard in determining that certain state constitutional amendments at
issue in this case were enacted for a nondiscriminatory purpose; (3) Is the equal protection
clause violated by a state constitutional amendment adopted for the purpose of entrenching
pre-existing race-based property tax assessments
Employment & Labor: Does pleading facts that are sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), establish
a plausible claim under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007)
Legal System: (1) Does a plaintiff have a constitutional right to represent herself in a case;
(2) Is the right to self-representation vitiated when a judge allows an opponent to take
advantage of a party's self-representing status by abusing her; (3) Is the right to selfrepresentation vitiated when a judge takes affirmative steps to obstruct a pro se plaintiff's
ability to access the courts; (4) Do judges have an obligation to reasonably inform pro se
litigants before trial that they will be treated on the same level as an attorney in terms of
the procedural requirements of admitting evidence, and overall, is it sufficient for a trial
judge to simply advise a pro se litigant to obtain an attorney; (5) Do judges have a duty to
duly inform a pro se litigant of the possible consequences of trying a case without counsel
before trial proper; (6) Can the requisites of constitutional malice, vis-a-vis defamation, be
met by demonstrating that a defendant intentionally evaded procedure to ensure that a
plaintiff could not contest the defamatory material in the context of a campaign of
harassment
Pending Consideration
Pending Consideration
Pending Consideration
Pending Consideration
Craig v. Rich Twp. High Sch. Dist. 227, 131084, 3/3/14
Employment & Labor: Should a free speech retaliatory discharge claim based on the
publication of a book on a topic of public concern be evaluated using the three
part Pickering-Connick balancing test rather than the heightened scrutiny mandated by this
court's decision in United States v. Nat'l Treasury Emps. Union where the book contains
only incidental references to the author's employment and is “largely unconnected” to his
employment
Estate of C.A. v. Castro, 13-1029, 2/24/14
Legal System: (1) Can a claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 be made when a state actor has not
affirmatively acted, but has failed to act, and because of deliberate indifference has caused
a person to be subjected to a violation of a constitutionally protected right; (2) Did
individual defendants violate C.A.'s clearly established constitutional rights when they
disregarded applicable regulations and policies and failed to implement reasonable
safeguards, ultimately leaving students (some of whom could not swim) unsupervised in
the deep end of the school pool; (3) Did the petitioners raise a question of material fact on
each element of a Section 1983 claim premised on the state-created-danger theory of
liability against Houston Independent School District
Employment & Labor: 1) Is the government categorically free under the First Amendment
to retaliate against a public employee for truthful sworn testimony that was compelled by
subpoena and was not a part of the employee's ordinary job responsibilities? (2) Does
qualified immunity preclude a claim for damages in such an action
Religion: 1) Does the Establishment Clause prohibit the government from conducting public
functions such as high school graduation exercises in a church building, where the function
has no religious content and the government selected the venue for reasons of secular
convenience; (2) Does the government “coerce” religious activity in violation of Lee v.
Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992), and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S.
290 (2000), where there is no pressure to engage in a religious practice or activity but
merely exposure to religious symbols; (3) Does the government “endorse” religion when it
engages in a religion–neutral action that incidentally exposes citizens to a private religious
message
Lane v. Franks, 13-483, 10/15/13
Elmbrook Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 12-755,
12/20/12
Pending Consideration
Legal Clips summary of
Seventh Circuit panel decision
available at
http://legalclips.nsba.org/201
3/12/19/seventh-circuitupholds-school-boards-firingof-guidance-counselor-forpublishing-relationshipadvice-book-both-explicitand-controversial/
Pending Consideration
Argued 4/28/14
Pending Consideration
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative
Action, 12-682, 11/28/12
Equity & Discrimination: Does a state violate the Equal Protection Clause by amending its
constitution to prohibit race– and sex–based discrimination or preferential treatment in
public university admissions decisions
Decided 4/22/14
Court, 6-2, held: There is no
authority in the Federal
Constitution or in this Court’s
precedents for the Judiciary to
set aside Michigan laws that
commit to the voters the
determination whether racial
preferences may be
considered in governmental
decisions, in particular with
respect to school
admissions.