Volume 596 — United States Reports

Badgerow v. Walters, 596 U.S. 1 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning when, if ever, federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Court held that the "look through" approach established by the Court's decision in Vaden v. Discover Bank "does not apply to requests to confirm or vacate arbitral awards under Sections 9 and 10 of the FAA."

Thompson v. Clark, 596 U.S. 36 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that, to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff need not show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence. A plaintiff need only show that his prosecution ended without a conviction. The 6–3 opinion was authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Justice Samuel Alito dissented from the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Media coverage of the decision portrayed the Court's ruling as a victory for civil rights lawsuits.

Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation, 596 U.S. 107 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, in a suit raising non-federal claims against a foreign state or instrumentality under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a court should determine the substantive law by using the same choice-of-law rule applicable in a similar suit against a private party.

Brown v. Davenport, 596 U.S. 118 (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court. The case concerned whether habeas relief may be granted if the Brecht v. Abrahamson test alone is satisfied, or if the application of Chapman v. California by the state courts was unreasonable because of the AEDPA. The court held that federal courts can not grant habeas relief when state courts have already ruled on a prisoner's claim, unless the situation satisfies the test laid out in Brecht v. Abrahamson, and the exceptions to the AEDPA's §2254(d) jurisdictional bar.

Boechler v. Commissioner, 596 U.S. 199 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to Title 26 of the United States Code (aka. Internal Revenue Code) and equitable tolling. It is regarding the statutory interpretation of 26 U.S.C. § 6330(c) and whether the tax court would have jurisdiction over petitions to the tax court if the petition exceeded the 30 days time frame.

Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 596 U.S. 212 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Shurtleff v. City of Boston, 596 U.S. 243 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case concerned the City of Boston's program that allowed groups to have their flags flown outside Boston City Hall. In a unanimous 9–0 decision, the Court ruled that the city violated a Christian group's free speech rights when it denied their request to raise a Christian flag over City Hall.

Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U.S. 289 (2022), was a case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States struck down section 304 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which limited the amount of money that candidates could be paid on personal loans to their campaign.

Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying judgments related to discretionary relief in immigration proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2).

Shinn v. Ramirez, 596 U.S. 366 (2022), was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court related to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. The court held that new evidence that was not in the state court's records, based on ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel, could not be used in an appeal to a federal court.

Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., 596 U.S. 411 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that federal courts may not adopt an arbitration-specific rule conditioning a waiver of the right to arbitrate on a showing of prejudice.

Gallardo v. Marstiller, 596 U.S. 420 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case that held the Medicaid Act permits a state to seek reimbursement from settlement payments allocated for future medical care. The case was brought by the parents of Gianinna Gallardo, who was in a persistent vegetative state.

Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, 596 U.S. 450 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act, in which the Court unanimously held that cargo loaders and ramp supervisors employed at airports are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 596 U.S. 464 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Congress's enactment of a significant fee increase that exempted debtors in two states violated the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause.

Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court declined to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.

Kemp v. United States, 596 U.S. 528 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the term "mistake" in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) includes a judge's errors of law. Because Dexter Kemp's motion alleged such an error, it was cognizable under Rule 60(b)(1) and untimely under Rule 60(c)’s one-year limitations period.

Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez, 596 U.S. 543 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that Section 1231(a)(6) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 does not require the government to provide noncitizens detained for six months with bond hearings in which the Government bears the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that a noncitizen poses a flight risk or a danger to the community.

Denezpi v. United States, 596 U.S. 591 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the double jeopardy clause does not bar successive prosecutions of distinct offenses arising from a single act, even if a single sovereign prosecutes them.

ZF Automotive U.S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd., 596 U.S. 619 (2022), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court on the scope of §1782 of Title 28 of the United States Code. The issue of statutory interpretation for the Court was whether a private commercial arbitral tribunal constitutes a "foreign or international tribunal" under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) and therefore empowers federal districts courts to compel the production by persons subject to their jurisdiction of documents and testimony for such tribunals. The case was decided together with AlixPartners LLP v. The Fund for Protection of Investor Rights in Foreign States which concerned an investor-state arbitration.

Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, 596 U.S. 639 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act.

Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. 666 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The case reviewed whether all ameliorative measures must be taken into consideration before denying a Hague Convention petition once it is found that the child could face harm when returned to a foreign country.

American Hospital Association v. Becerra, 596 U.S. 724 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case relating to administrative law. The case centered on a rule from the Department of Health and Human Services, which reduced reimbursement rates for certain hospitals. Several hospital associations and hospitals affected by the rule sued HHS, alleging that it exceeded its statutory authority. The court was tasked with deciding if the rule was a reasonable interpretation of the law, and if the statute blocked judicial review of the rule in the first place.

George v. McDonough, 596 U.S. 740 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the invalidation of a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation after a veteran's benefits decision becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief permitting revision of that decision based on "clear and unmistakable error" under 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109A and 7111.

Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, 596 U.S. 763 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of states to defend federal regulations in court. However, rather than resolving the questions presented, the Supreme Court dismissed review of the case as improvidently granted.

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case related to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

Shoop v. Twyford, 596 U.S. 811 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to death row inmates' habeas corpus petitions.

United States v. Washington, 596 U.S. 832 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with workers' compensation laws at the federal and state levels. The case revolved around compensation for non-federal employees working on nuclear and chemical cleanup at the Hanford Site in Washington State required under state law.

United States v. Taylor, 596 U.S. 845 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an attempted Hobbs Act robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) because no element of the offense requires proof that the defendant used, attempted to use, or threatened to use force.

Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc., 596 U.S. 880 (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Medicare Secondary Payer statute does not authorize disparate-impact liability, and the Marietta Plan's coverage terms for outpatient dialysis were lawful because those terms applied uniformly to all covered individuals.