SS

Listen to the episode on Spotify

The Supreme Court clarified an important aspect of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, in the case of Cunningham et al. v. Cornell University. The justices decided that when someone wants to make a claim under a specific part of this law, they only need to show that their claim meets the basic requirements laid out in that section. They don’t have to worry about other exemptions that might apply.

This ruling overturned a previous decision from the Second Circuit Court, which had added extra steps for plaintiffs. They had to prove not only that their claim was valid but also that certain transactions were unnecessary or involved unreasonable compensation. The Supreme Court's decision simplifies the process for those bringing claims under this part of ERISA, making it easier for them to seek justice.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, and she was joined by several other justices. This case highlights how the law can evolve and adapt, ensuring that individuals have a fair chance to present their claims without unnecessary hurdles.

Summary of the Case

The case of Cunningham et al. v. Cornell University et al. arose from a group of current and former employees of Cornell University who participated in defined-contribution retirement plans. They alleged that Cornell and its fiduciaries engaged in prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by paying excessive fees for recordkeeping services provided by parties in interest, specifically the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America-College Retirement Equities Fund and Fidelity Investments Inc. The plaintiffs contended that the fees paid were significantly higher than what would be considered reasonable. The District Court dismissed their claims, and the Second Circuit affirmed this dismissal, ruling that plaintiffs must plead that the exemptions under §1108(b)(2)(A) do not apply to their claims under §1106(a)(1)(C).

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, reversed the Second Circuit's decision. The Court held that to state a claim under §1106(a)(1)(C), a plaintiff need only plausibly allege the elements contained in that provision itself, without needing to address potential exemptions under §1108. The Court reasoned that §1106(a)(1)(C) contains a categorical prohibition against certain transactions, and the exemptions in §1108 are structured as affirmative defenses that must be pleaded and proved by the defendants. The Court emphasized that requiring plaintiffs to negate these exemptions in their initial pleadings would be impractical and contrary to the statutory structure of ERISA.

Separate Opinions

Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh. Alito agreed with the Court's conclusion that §1108 sets out affirmative defenses and that plaintiffs need not plead against them. However, he expressed concern that this ruling could lead to practical issues, as it may allow plaintiffs to survive motions to dismiss by merely alleging that a fiduciary engaged in transactions that are often necessary for plan administration, potentially leading to increased litigation costs for fiduciaries.

Dissenting Opinions

There were no dissenting opinions in this case; the ruling was unanimous.

ERISA and Exemptions

The case highlights a critical interpretation of ERISA, particularly the relationship between its prohibitory and exemptive provisions. The Court's decision clarifies that the burden of proving the applicability of exemptions under §1108 lies with the defendants, not the plaintiffs. This interpretation aligns with the general principle in statutory construction that exemptions are treated as affirmative defenses. The Court's ruling underscores the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between prohibited conduct and exemptions, thereby preventing the potential for overly burdensome pleading requirements that could stifle legitimate claims. The decision also reflects a broader concern about the balance between protecting plan participants and ensuring that fiduciaries can effectively manage retirement plans without facing undue litigation risks.

A case that highlights the complexities of bankruptcy law and the role of insurers in these proceedings is the subject of Truck Insurance Exchange versus Kaiser Gypsum Company. The Supreme Court made an important ruling about who gets to have a say in bankruptcy cases.

The Court decided that insurers, like Truck Insurance Exchange, who are financially responsible for claims in bankruptcy, are considered "parties in interest." This means they have the right to raise objections and be heard during Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. The Court overturned a previous decision from the Fourth Circuit, which had said that insurers didn’t have standing to object based on something called the "insurance neutrality" doctrine.

This ruling opens the door for insurers to participate more actively in bankruptcy proceedings, especially when their financial interests are at stake. It’s a significant shift that could impact how bankruptcy cases are handled in the future, ensuring that those who might be affected by reorganization plans have a voice in the process.

Summary of the Case

The case of Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. arose from the bankruptcy proceedings of Kaiser Gypsum and Hanson Permanente Cement, companies facing extensive asbestos-related liabilities. Truck Insurance Exchange, the primary insurer for these companies, sought to object to the proposed reorganization plan, arguing that it exposed them to fraudulent claims due to insufficient disclosure requirements for insured versus uninsured claims. The lower courts ruled that Truck lacked standing to object, deeming the plan "insurance neutral," meaning it did not alter Truck's prepetition obligations or rights under its insurance policies. Truck appealed to the Supreme Court to determine whether it qualified as a "party in interest" under §1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, reversed the lower court's decision. The Court held that an insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is indeed a "party in interest" under §1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court emphasized that the text, context, and history of §1109(b) support a broad interpretation that allows any entity directly and adversely affected by a reorganization plan to raise objections. The Court rejected the "insurance neutrality" doctrine used by the lower courts, which conflated the merits of an objection with the threshold inquiry of who qualifies as a party in interest. The Court concluded that Truck's financial exposure and potential liability under the proposed plan warranted its right to be heard in the proceedings.

Separate Opinions

There were no separate opinions in this case, as all justices joined in the majority opinion.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Alito did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case, but there were no dissenting opinions expressed.

Bankruptcy Code and Fair Representation

The case highlights the interpretative challenges surrounding §1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, which allows "parties in interest" to participate in Chapter 11 proceedings. The Court's ruling underscores the importance of broad participation in bankruptcy cases to ensure fair representation of all stakeholders, particularly in complex cases involving significant liabilities like asbestos claims. The decision clarifies that insurers, who bear financial responsibility for claims, have a legitimate interest in the proceedings, regardless of whether their contractual obligations are altered. This interpretation aligns with the historical context of the Bankruptcy Code, which aims to prevent insider control and promote equitable treatment of all parties involved. The ruling also emphasizes that the potential for financial harm, such as exposure to fraudulent claims, is sufficient to establish a party's interest in the proceedings, thereby reinforcing the principle of inclusivity in bankruptcy law.

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

Smith et al. v. Spizzirri et al. brings to light some interesting nuances in the law surrounding arbitration. The Supreme Court made it clear that when a district court identifies a lawsuit that can be settled through arbitration, and one party asks to pause the court proceedings while arbitration takes place, the law requires the court to grant that request.

This means that the court does not have the option to dismiss the case outright. Instead, it must issue a stay, allowing the arbitration process to unfold. This ruling emphasizes the importance of arbitration as a means to resolve disputes without going through the full court system.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, and she was joined by several other justices, reinforcing a strong consensus on this issue. The decision highlights how the Federal Arbitration Act plays a crucial role in guiding how courts handle cases that involve arbitration agreements.

As we continue to see more cases involving arbitration, this ruling sets a clear precedent for how similar situations should be handled in the future.

Summary of the Case

The case of Smith et al. v. Spizzirri et al. arose from a dispute involving the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Petitioners, who were delivery drivers for an on-demand service, filed a lawsuit in state court against their employer, alleging violations of federal and state employment laws, including misclassification as independent contractors and failure to pay minimum wages. The respondents removed the case to federal court and sought to compel arbitration, which the petitioners conceded was appropriate. However, the petitioners contended that under Section 3 of the FAA, the district court was required to stay the proceedings pending arbitration rather than dismissing the case entirely. The district court compelled arbitration but dismissed the case without prejudice, a decision that was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court was asked to resolve whether a district court has the discretion to dismiss a case when a party requests a stay pending arbitration.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, held that when a district court finds that a lawsuit involves an arbitrable dispute and a party has requested a stay, Section 3 of the FAA mandates that the court must issue a stay and lacks the discretion to dismiss the case. The Court emphasized that the statutory language, particularly the use of "shall," imposes an obligation on the court to stay proceedings. The Court rejected the respondents' argument that "stay" could be interpreted to include "dismiss," noting that the legal meaning of "stay" is a temporary suspension, not a termination of proceedings. The Court also pointed out that allowing dismissal would conflict with the FAA's structure, which is designed to facilitate arbitration and allow parties to return to court if arbitration fails. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

One Word Creates a Binding Obligation

The case highlights the interpretative challenges surrounding the FAA, particularly Section 3, which governs the stay of proceedings in cases subject to arbitration. The Court's interpretation underscores the mandatory nature of the statutory language, emphasizing that the use of "shall" creates a binding obligation for courts. This interpretation aligns with the FAA's overarching purpose of promoting arbitration as a means of resolving disputes efficiently. The Court's ruling clarifies that district courts do not possess inherent authority to dismiss cases subject to arbitration when a stay is requested, thereby reinforcing the statutory framework designed to facilitate arbitration. This decision also addresses a circuit split regarding the interpretation of the FAA, providing a clear directive for lower courts on how to handle similar cases in the future. The ruling thus serves to enhance the predictability and consistency of arbitration proceedings in federal courts.

The Supreme Court issued their opinion involving Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation and Moab Partners. The decision, issued on April 12, 2024, clarified important rules about financial disclosures.

The Court decided that simply not sharing information, known as "pure omissions," does not violate SEC Rule 10b-5(b). This means that if a company fails to disclose certain information, it can only be held accountable if that omission makes other statements they made misleading. In other words, if a company says something that sounds good but leaves out important details, that could be a problem.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, and she was joined by several other justices. This ruling helps define what companies need to disclose to investors and sets a clear standard for when they can be held responsible for not sharing information.

This case is a reminder of the importance of transparency in the financial world and how companies must be careful about what they say and what they leave out.

Summary of the Case

The case of Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P. arose from allegations that Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation failed to disclose material information regarding the impact of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) 2020 regulation on its business. Specifically, the regulation capped the sulfur content of fuel oil used in shipping, which significantly affected the market for No. 6 fuel oil, a product stored by Macquarie's subsidiary. Following a substantial drop in contracted storage capacity and a subsequent 41% decline in stock price, Moab Partners sued Macquarie, claiming violations of SEC Rule 10b-5(b) for omitting material facts that rendered their public statements misleading. The District Court dismissed the complaint, but the Second Circuit reversed, asserting that Macquarie had a duty to disclose the implications of the IMO 2020 regulation under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court held that pure omissions are not actionable under Rule 10b-5(b). The Court clarified that Rule 10b-5(b) prohibits making untrue statements of material facts or omitting material facts necessary to make statements made not misleading. However, it distinguished between "pure omissions"—where no statement is made—and "half-truths," where a statement is made but is misleading due to the omission of critical information. The Court concluded that a failure to disclose information required by Item 303 can only support a Rule 10b-5(b) claim if it renders affirmative statements misleading. The Court emphasized that silence, in the absence of a duty to disclose, is not inherently misleading under Rule 10b-5(b). Thus, the judgment of the Second Circuit was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Separate Opinions

Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court, which was unanimous. There were no separate concurring opinions noted in the provided text.

Pure Omissions and Half-Truths

The ruling in this case highlights a critical distinction in securities law between pure omissions and half-truths. The Court's interpretation of Rule 10b-5(b) underscores that liability for omissions is contingent upon the existence of misleading statements. This interpretation aligns with the statutory context of the Securities Act of 1933, which explicitly provides for liability for pure omissions under Section 11(a). The absence of similar language in Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(b) indicates that Congress did not intend to impose liability for pure omissions in the same manner. The Court's decision reinforces the principle that while companies have a duty to disclose material information, that duty is not absolute and must be linked to the context of statements made. This nuanced understanding of disclosure obligations is essential for interpreting the regulatory framework governing securities transactions and investor protections.

The Supreme Court case, Wilkinson v. Garland, was decided on March 19, 2024.

The main issue at hand was whether courts have the authority to review decisions made by Immigration Judges about whether a person's removal from the country would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to a family member. The Supreme Court ruled that this is indeed a question that can be reviewed by higher courts. They found that the Third Circuit made a mistake when it said it didn’t have the power to look at this issue.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, and she was joined by Justices Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The Court's decision means that cases like this can be examined more closely in the future, allowing for a fairer review of the hardships that families might face.

On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito dissented. Justice Clarence Thomas joined in on the dissenting opinion.

This ruling is important because it clarifies the role of courts in immigration cases, especially when it comes to the impact on families. It opens the door for more thorough reviews of hardship claims, which could affect many lives moving forward.

Summary of the Case

The case of Wilkinson v. Garland arose from Situ Kamu Wilkinson's application for cancellation of removal after being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for overstaying his tourist visa. Wilkinson sought to remain in the United States, arguing that his removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to his U.S.-citizen son, who suffers from a serious medical condition. The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application, concluding that the hardship did not meet the statutory standard. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed this decision. The Third Circuit dismissed Wilkinson's appeal, claiming it lacked jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary hardship determination. The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the IJ's hardship determination was a mixed question of law and fact, thus reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Sotomayor, reversed the Third Circuit's ruling. The Court held that the IJ's determination regarding "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" is indeed a mixed question of law and fact, which is reviewable under § 1252(a)(2)(D). The Court clarified that while the IJ's factual findings (such as credibility and the seriousness of the child's medical condition) are unreviewable, the application of the statutory hardship standard to those facts constitutes a question of law. The Court emphasized that the interaction between the jurisdiction-stripping provisions of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and the jurisdiction-restoring provisions of § 1252(a)(2)(D) allows for judicial review of mixed questions of law and fact, as established in prior cases like Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr.

Separate Opinions

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the judgment but expressing skepticism about the broad interpretation of "questions of law" as encompassing all mixed questions, particularly in light of the statutory scheme. She noted that Congress intended to limit judicial review of discretionary relief determinations.

Dissenting Opinions

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented. Chief Justice Roberts argued that the Court's interpretation of "questions of law" was overly broad and undermined the intent of Congress to limit judicial review of discretionary decisions. Justice Alito contended that the majority's reading of Guerrero-Lasprilla extended too far, allowing for judicial review of decisions that should remain within the discretion of immigration judges, particularly those that are primarily factual in nature.

Immigration and Judicial Review

The case highlights the complex interplay between statutory provisions governing immigration and judicial review. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, Congress has established a framework that generally strips courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary relief decisions while allowing for the review of constitutional claims and questions of law. The distinction between "questions of law" and "questions of fact" is critical; while factual determinations made by immigration judges are unreviewable, the application of legal standards to established facts can be reviewed. The Court's decision reinforces the principle that mixed questions of law and fact, even when they require significant factual analysis, are subject to judicial scrutiny, thereby ensuring that the application of statutory standards is consistent and fair. This nuanced interpretation aims to balance the need for judicial oversight with the legislative intent to streamline immigration proceedings.

In Murray v. UBS Securities, the justices made an important decision regarding whistleblowers. The case focused on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which protects employees who report wrongdoing in their companies. The Court ruled that whistleblowers do not have to prove that their employer intended to retaliate against them. Instead, they only need to show that their actions, like reporting misconduct, played a role in any negative treatment they faced at work.

This ruling overturned a previous decision from the Second Circuit Court, which had required proof of retaliatory intent. The Supreme Court's decision means that whistleblowers have a clearer path to seek justice when they face backlash for speaking up. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion, and she was joined by several other justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

This case highlights the importance of protecting those who stand up against wrongdoing in the workplace. It sends a strong message that employees should feel safe to report issues without fear of losing their jobs or facing other forms of retaliation. The Court's decision is a significant step in supporting whistleblowers and ensuring that their voices are heard.

Overview

The case of Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC arose from Trevor Murray's claim that UBS terminated his employment in violation of the whistleblower protections established by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Murray, who worked as a research strategist, alleged that he was fired after reporting unethical and potentially illegal practices by UBS executives that pressured him to alter his independent research reports. The District Court initially ruled in favor of Murray, allowing the jury to determine whether his whistleblowing was a contributing factor to his termination. However, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, asserting that Murray needed to prove UBS acted with "retaliatory intent," a requirement not explicitly stated in the statute.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Sotomayor, held that a whistleblower under § 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act must demonstrate that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action but is not required to prove that the employer acted with "retaliatory intent." The Court emphasized that the statutory text does not include a requirement for proving retaliatory intent, and the burden-shifting framework established by Congress is designed to be plaintiff-friendly.

The Court clarified that "discriminate" in the context of the statute refers to differential treatment based on protected whistleblowing activity, and the absence of animus or retaliatory intent does not absolve an employer from liability if the whistleblower can show that their protected activity contributed to the adverse action. The Court reversed the Second Circuit's ruling, which had imposed an additional burden on whistleblowers, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Concurring Opinion

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Barrett, filed a concurring opinion. While agreeing with the Court's conclusion that retaliatory intent is not a requirement, Alito emphasized the importance of proving that the adverse employment action was made "because of" the protected conduct. He reiterated that the statute's burden-shifting framework still necessitates a showing of intent to discriminate, albeit not in the form of animus.

Dissenting Opinions

There were no dissenting opinions in this case; the decision was unanimous.

Nuance of the Law

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act's whistleblower protection provisions were enacted to encourage employees to report corporate misconduct without fear of retaliation. The law establishes a burden-shifting framework where the whistleblower must first demonstrate that their protected activity was a contributing factor in the adverse employment action. If successful, the burden then shifts to the employer to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the same action would have been taken regardless of the whistleblowing.

The Court's interpretation underscores the legislative intent to protect whistleblowers by lowering the burden of proof required to establish a claim. The absence of a "retaliatory intent" requirement aligns with the broader goal of fostering an environment where employees feel safe to report wrongdoing. This decision clarifies the legal landscape for whistleblower claims, ensuring that employers cannot evade liability simply by asserting a lack of animus, thus reinforcing the protective framework intended by Congress.