Volume 568 — United States Reports

This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 568 of the United States Reports:

United States v. Bormes, 568 U.S. 6 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Little Tucker Act, which provides jurisdiction to federal courts for certain claims brought against the federal government, does not apply to lawsuits brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).

Held: Because the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision disregards this Court’s Federal Arbitration Act precedents, its judgment must be va cated.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, 568 U.S. 23 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that it was possible for government-induced, temporary flooding to constitute a "taking" of property under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, such that compensation could be owed to the owner of the flooded property.

Kloeckner v. Solis, 568 U.S. 41 (2012), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving federal employee grievance procedures under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The issue was whether a so-called "mixed case" involving both wrongful termination and discrimination claims should be appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board to a federal district court or to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Ryan v. Valencia Gonzales, 568 U.S. 57 (2013), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a defendant on death row did not need to be held competent during federal habeas corpus proceedings.

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers. The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.

Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that an unconditional and irrevocable commitment not to enforce a trademark against the defendant in an action moots that action over the defendant's objection that the trademark is invalid.

Smith v. United States, 568 U.S. 106 (2013), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The case was argued on November 6, 2012, and decided on January 9, 2013.

Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 568 U.S. 115 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a vessel in admiralty law is something that a reasonable observer would consider designed for water transportation. The case arose from an in rem suit brought under admiralty jurisdiction by the city of Riviera Beach, Florida, against a floating home owned by resident Fane Lozman. Lozman argued that the floating home, which had no means by which to propel itself, was not a vessel under the Rules of Construction Act and thus not subject to admiralty jurisdiction. The Court resolved a circuit split as to what it means for a vessel to be "capable" of transportation by creating the reasonable observer standard, ruling in Lozman's favor.

Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, 568 U.S. 145 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the 180-day statute of limitations for a hospital to appeal a final Medicare reimbursement is not jurisdictional, but it is also not subject to equitable tolling.

Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the appeal of a district court's decision to return a child to his country of residence is not precluded by the child's departure from the United States. It arose from the divorce proceedings of Mr. and Ms. Chafin; she wanted their daughter to live with her in Scotland, while he wanted her to remain in the United States with him.

Bailey v. United States, 568 U.S. 186 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning search and seizure. A 6–3 decision reversed the weapons conviction of a Long Island man who had been detained when police followed his vehicle after he left his apartment just before it was to be searched. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and Antonin Scalia filed a concurrence. Stephen Breyer dissented.

FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc., 568 U.S. 216 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that state-action immunity does not apply when the state has not clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed that its plan to enter the market will substantially lessen competition.

Florida v. Harris, 568 U.S. 237 (2013), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court addressed the reliability of a dog sniff by a detection dog trained to identify narcotics, under the specific context of whether law enforcement's assertions that the dog is trained or certified is sufficient to establish probable cause for a search of a vehicle under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Harris was the first Supreme Court case to challenge the dog's reliability, backed by data that asserts that on average, up to 80% of a dog's alerts are wrong. Twenty-four U.S. States, the federal government, and two U.S. territories filed briefs in support of Florida as amici curiae. Oral argument in this case – and that of another dog sniff case, Florida v.

Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013), is a US patent law case. The case dealt with the question of jurisdiction of patent law litigation in regard to attorney malpractice. In a unanimous ruling, the United States Supreme Court decided that federal laws granting exclusive jurisdiction to cases involving patents does not preclude the ability of state courts to hear cases related to but not involving patents. The case was remanded to the Texas state courts for further proceedings.

Henderson v. United States, 568 U.S. 266 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held regardless of whether a legal question was settled or unsettled at the time of trial, an error is "plain" within the meaning of Rule 52(b) of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure so long as the error was plain at the time of appellate review.

Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, for purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, when a state court rules against a defendant in an opinion that rejects some of the defendant's claims but does not expressly address a federal claim, a federal habeas court must presume, subject to rebuttal, that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits.

Evans v. Michigan, 568 U.S. 313 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that if a person accused of a crime receives a directed acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second trial of that person for the same crime, even if the person was acquitted in error.

Chaidez v. United States, 568 U.S. 342 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that the ruling in Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky could not be applied retroactively, because the Padilla case applied a new rule to the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Padilla v. Kentucky held that the Sixth Amendment made it mandatory for criminal defense attorneys to advise non-citizen clients about the deportation risks of a guilty plea. While Padilla v. Kentucky was a case related to immigration and deportation, Justice Scalia worried that there was "no logical stopping point" to how Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky can be applied.

Marx v. General Revenue Corp., 568 U.S. 371 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act did not modify Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1).

Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Amnesty International USA and others lacked standing to challenge section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. § 1881a), as amended by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008.

Gabelli v. SEC, 568 U.S. 442 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the statute of limitations for filing civil penalty actions initiates when the offending act is committed or finished.

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds, 568 U.S. 455 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that proof of materiality is not a prerequisite to certification of a securities-fraud class action.

Levin v. United States, 568 U.S. 503 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Gonzalez Act abrogates the Federal Tort Claims Act's intentional tort exception and therefore permits a suit against the United States alleging medical battery by a Navy doctor acting within the scope of his employment.

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held, 6–3, that the first-sale doctrine exhausts copyright of the works lawfully made or purchased abroad.

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a class-action plaintiff cannot defeat federal court jurisdiction by stipulating that they will not seek damages above the amount-in-controversy requirement.

Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, 568 U.S. 597 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that a provision of the Clean Water Act governing challenges to Environmental Protection Agency actions, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b), does not prohibit a citizen suit under Section 1365 when the suit is against an alleged violator and seeks to enforce an obligation imposed by the CWA or its regulations. The court also held that the case was not moot due to regulations issued in the interim. The case was consolidated with Georgia-Pacific West, Inc. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center.

Wos v. E.M.A., 568 U.S. 627 (2013) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal Medicaid statute's anti-lien provision preempts a state's irrebuttable statutory presumption that one-third of a tort recovery is attributable to medical expenses.