U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

7 Cases to Remember From the SCOTUS 2017 Term

This past year has been filled with SCOTUS decisions, like nearly every year before it, that have resolved some pretty big issues. One big notable change at the Court this year includes the introduction of electronic filing.

The High Court was mobilized on several occasions to review the Executive Order travel bans. And let both anti-gun and gun rights activists down by refusing to hear significant Second Amendment cases.

Below, you can reminisce and remind yourself about some of the other more notable decisions of 2017.

Death Penalty Despite Failing Memory

While some members of the Court did not believe the death penalty should be used at all, the justices pretty much all agreed that a convicted murderer could not avoid the death penalty for forgetting the crime due to his medical condition.

"Your" Netflix Password Is Still Safe

The High Court refused to hear a pair of cases that could have had a serious impact on the widely accepted practice of sharing passwords for various online accounts, such as streaming services.

Bivens Claims Restricted

As everyone's favorite constitutional law scholar, Erwin Chemerinsky, explained that the Ziglar v. Abbasi decision effectively changes the way Bivens claims traditionally and historically worked for over three decades.

Disparaging Trademarks Okayed

In what can easily be called one of oddest cases to hit the High Court, a music group wanted to protect the rights in their group's name, which happened to be a disparaging term for the ethnic group, which they belong to, and which they were trying to reclaim. Surprisingly, the Court was okay with it, but the ramifications are bit more far-reaching, despite the levity of the case.

Provocation Rule Ruled Excessive

The Ninth Circuit's provocation rule that could result in police liability for provoking an excessive force incident was dismantled by the High Court. It explained that the Circuit's approach was novel, and used one constitutional violation to form the basis of another, and as such was unnecessary.

Qualified Immunity Qualification

In what seemed to be a clear case of an officer wrongly firing his gun and killing an innocent person, SCOTUS explained that qualified immunity applied to the officer, regardless of the fact that he failed to even issue a verbal warning before firing.

TC Heartland Hits Patent Trolls in the Heart

Perhaps one of the most important decisions for patent litigators in recent years happened this past year. It limited the ability of patent plaintiffs to choose the most favorable venue for their claim, which curiously was in the Texas federal courts.

Related Resources: