Volume 583 — United States Reports

An appeal filing deadline prescribed by statute is considered “jurisdic- tional,” meaning that late filing of the appeal notice necessitates dismissal of the appeal. Held: The Court of Appeals erred in treating as jurisdictional Rule 4(a)(5)(C)’s limitation on extensions of time to file a notice of appeal. Pp. 5–10.

District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48 (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that police officers had probable cause to arrest those attending a party in Washington, D.C.

Federal district courts may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims not otherwise within their adjudicatory authority if those claims are “part of the same case or… Held: Section 1367(d)’s instruction to “toll” a state limitations period means to hold it in abeyance, i.e., to stop the clock. Pp. 7–16. (a) Statutes that shelter from time bars claims earlier com- 2 ARTIS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Syllabus menced in another forum generally employ one of two means.

The Clean Water Act (Act) generally prohibits “the discharge of any pollutant by any person,” except in express circumstances. 33 U. S. C. §1311 (a). Held: Because the WOTUS Rule falls outside the ambit of §1369(b)(1), challenges to the Rule must be filed in federal district courts. Pp. 9– 20. (a) Neither subparagraph (E) nor subparagraph (F) of §1369(b)(1) grants courts of appeals exclusive jurisdiction to review the WOTUS Rule in the first instance. Pp. 9–17.

Endeavoring to root out corporate fraud, Congress passed the Sar- banes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Sarbanes-Oxley) and the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and… Held: Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision does not extend to an individual, like Somers, who has not reported a violation of the secu- rities laws to the SEC. Pp. 9–19. (a) A statute’s explicit definition must be followed, even if it varies from a term’s ordinary meaning. Burgess v. United States, 553 U. S. 124, 130 .

Class v. United States, 583 U.S. 174 (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case on challenges to the constitutionality of a federal law by a defendant who has already pleaded guilty.

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA) grants foreign states and their agencies and instrumentalities immunity from suit in the United States and grants… Held: Section 1610(g) does not provide a freestanding basis for parties holding a judgment under §1605A to attach and execute against the property of a foreign state; rather, for §1610(g) to apply, the immuni- ty of the property at issue must be rescinded under a separate provi- sion within §1610. Pp. 4–15.

Petitioner Charles Murphy was awarded a judgment in his federal civil rights suit against two of his prison guards, including an award of at- torney’s fees. Held: In cases governed by §1997e(d), district courts must apply as much of the judgment as necessary, up to 25%, to satisfy an award of attorney’s fees. The specific statutory language supports the Seventh Circuit’s interpretation.

Petitioner David Patchak filed suit challenging the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to invoke the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U. S. C. §5108 , and take into trust a property (Bradley… Held: The judgment is affirmed. 828 F. 3d 995 , affirmed. JUSTICE THOMAS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE ALITO, and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded that §2(b) of the Gun Lake Act does not violate Article III of the Constitution. Pp. 4–16.

Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that detained immigrants do not have a statutory right to periodic bond hearings.

The Bankruptcy Code allows trustees to set aside and recover certain transfers for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate, including, as rele- vant here, certain… Held: The only relevant transfer for purposes of the §546(e) safe harbor is the transfer that the trustee seeks to avoid. Pp. 9–19. (a) Before a court can determine whether a transfer was “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a covered entity, it must first identify the relevant transfer to test in that inquiry.

Respondent Lakeridge is a corporate entity with a single owner, MBP Equity Partners. Held: The Ninth Circuit was right to review the Bankruptcy Court’s determination for clear error (rather than de novo). At the heart of this case is a so-called “mixed question” of law and fact—whether the Bankruptcy Court’s findings of fact satisfy the legal test chosen for conferring non-statutory insider status.

In the wake of the 1929 stock market crash, Congress enacted two laws, in successive years, to promote honest practices in the securities markets. Held: SLUSA did nothing to strip state courts of their longstanding ju- risdiction to adjudicate class actions brought under the 1933 Act. Pp. 7–18. (a) SLUSA’s text, read most straightforwardly, leaves this juris- diction intact.