Listen to the episode on Spotify

A little-known detail about how one law can push another out of the way is the subject of this case. The Supreme Court looked at two rules for paying special combat benefits to veterans. One law, the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute, says the Secretary of Defense gets to decide who qualifies and how much they receive. An older law, called the Barring Act, set up its own claim process and a six-year deadline.

The justices, speaking through Justice Thomas in a unanimous opinion, said the CRSC rule stands on its own. Because it’s a separate law, it replaces the Barring Act’s steps and time limit. In plain terms, veterans seeking these extra payments will follow the newer CRSC path and won’t be blocked by the old six-year window.

Summary of the Case

Petitioner Simon Soto, a Marine Corps veteran medically retired in 2006 with a 100 percent VA disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder, applied in 2016 for "combat-related special compensation" (CRSC). Although the Navy approved his CRSC status, it limited retroactive payments to six years, citing the six-year statute of limitations in the "Barring Act." Soto filed a nationwide class-action suit arguing that the CRSC law itself provides authority to settle claims, thereby displacing the Barring Act's default procedures and time limits. The district court ruled in favor of Soto's class, but the Federal Circuit reversed. The Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case to resolve whether the CRSC law displaces the Barring Act.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, affirmed that the CRSC law provides an independent settlement mechanism and thus displaces the Barring Act. The Court defined "settlement" of Government claims as involving two key powers: determining if a claim is valid and calculating the amount owed. The Court emphasized that Congress doesn't need to use the specific word "settle" to grant settlement authority.

The CRSC law gives military department Secretaries authority to administer these benefits: it directs them to consider whether each applicant is eligible (resolving claim validity) and prescribes how to determine the monthly amount payable. Read as a whole, the CRSC law establishes a "self-contained, comprehensive compensation scheme" that authorizes the Secretary to perform both settlement functions, thereby displacing the six-year limitation period.

The Court rejected the Federal Circuit's insistence on requiring explicit settlement language or a specific limitations period. Congress can create a compensation scheme without including a time limit; the absence of such a period reflects a deliberate choice appropriate for a narrowly defined class of beneficiaries. The Court also dismissed the Government's policy concerns, finding that the statutory text and structure were sufficient to resolve the case.

How Veterans' Benefits Laws Override General Time Limits

At the heart of this case is the relationship between the Barring Act's default claims-settlement system and the special law Congress created for combat-related compensation. The Barring Act serves as a fallback—authorizing government agencies to "settle" certain military-pay claims and imposing a six-year deadline—unless "another law" provides settlement authority.

Congress doesn't need to explicitly label a statute as a "settlement" law. Instead, courts look at whether the law assigns an agency to (1) evaluate if claims are valid and (2) calculate how much is owed. The CRSC law includes both elements: it directs the Secretary to "consider" eligibility and instructs how to "determine" the monthly payment amount.

The absence of a time limit in the CRSC law is significant: it shows Congress chose not to impose deadlines for this special category of combat-disabled veterans. This structure indicates a legislative decision to completely replace the Barring Act's framework, even without using the word "settle" or specifying an alternative time limit.

The Court's analysis highlights an important principle of statutory interpretation: when Congress creates a specific, self-contained benefits system that includes both elements of settlement authority, that law governs—regardless of whether it contains traditional legal terminology or deadlines. The Soto decision reinforces that a law's effect comes from its text, context, and structure, not from specific magic words.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, Docket No. 23-1259

When the Supreme Court steps in to sort out a tight corner of court rules, it reminds us how every word counts. In Blom Bank v. Honickman, a bank asked to reopen a closed case so it could tweak its complaint. But there’s a rule that says you can only reopen a case for really rare, compelling reasons; so rare that they call them “extraordinary circumstances.”

The bank argued it should get a break because courts usually let you fix mistakes in your papers. The Second Circuit tried to balance that friendly approach with the strict reopening rule. The high court said no. Justice Thomas, writing for all nine justices, made clear you have to clear the high bar of "extraordinary circumstances" before you even think about making changes. Since the bank couldn’t show that kind of reason, its request stayed shut.

Summary of the Case

BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman arose after victims of Hamas terrorist attacks (2001–2003) sued BLOM Bank under the Anti-Terrorism Act, alleging the bank "aided and abetted" Hamas by providing financial services to allegedly affiliated customers. The District Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to plead the required "general awareness" element of aiding-and-abetting liability and denied leave to amend when plaintiffs declined opportunities to replead. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal but granted relief to reopen and amend by "balancing" finality concerns against liberal amendment policy. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the "extraordinary circumstances" standard yields to more lenient amendment rules when a movant seeks to amend its complaint after final judgment.

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thomas, writing for an eight-Justice majority, held that relief to reopen a case remains governed by the "extraordinary circumstances" standard even when a party seeks to reopen for amendment. The Court emphasized that this relief provision is a narrow "catchall" only for grounds not covered by other specific provisions, and that a broad reading would undermine time limitations built into the rules. It rejected the Second Circuit's approach of "balancing" different procedural rules, explaining that the liberal amendment standard applies only to pre-trial amendments and cannot dilute the stringency of reopening requirements once judgment is final. The Court reversed the Second Circuit and reaffirmed that plaintiffs must demonstrate "extraordinary circumstances" before being allowed to reopen a case for repleading.

Separate Opinions

Justice Jackson concurred in part and in the judgment, joining the majority except for one section. She agreed that the "extraordinary circumstances" standard governs motions to reopen but cautioned against reading precedent to bar reopening whenever a plaintiff previously declined to amend. Jackson emphasized that exercising a right to appeal does not automatically disqualify a movant from seeking relief to reopen and stressed that "due diligence" must be assessed in context.

When Final Means Final: The High Bar for Reopening Closed Cases

The Court's ruling reinforces that reopening a closed case is designed to preserve finality by permitting relief only in "extraordinary circumstances"—a principle established in earlier Supreme Court cases. This strict standard cannot be used to evade the one-year limit on relief for mistake, new evidence, or fraud. The Court clarified that the instruction to "freely give leave" to amend applies to pre-judgment amendments, not to cases closed by final judgment. By requiring movants to satisfy the extraordinary circumstances test before seeking amendment, the Court maintained the integrity of the Federal Rules—ensuring that a party's desire to amend does not weaken the high standard for reopening cases or render other procedural safeguards meaningless. This decision provides important guidance on the balance between finality in litigation and opportunities to correct pleadings.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

Wrestling with a subtle twist in federal law the high court rules on the question: Can failing to act still count as using physical force against someone?

In Delligatti v. United States, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by six other justices, said yes. If you knowingly cause serious injury or death, even by omission, you “use” physical force under the law. So a crime like New York second-degree murder, which can happen by ignoring a legal duty, still counts as a crime of violence.

Summary of the Case

Salvatore Delligatti, a member of the Genovese crime family, was indicted for recruiting associates to murder a suspected informant and supplying them with a loaded revolver. The Government charged him under a law which imposes a mandatory consecutive five-year sentence for using or carrying a firearm “during and in relation to any crime of violence.” VICAR attempted murder was grounded in New York second-degree murder, defined as intentionally causing death. Delligatti moved to dismiss on the ground that second-degree murder, as defined in New York which can be committed by omission of a legal duty, does not “have as an element the use…of physical force” within the elements clause. The District Court denied the motion, and the Second Circuit affirmed, relying on United States v. Castleman to hold that intentional causation involves the use of physical force and thus qualifies as a crime of violence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari “to decide whether an individual who…causes bodily injury or death by failing to take action uses physical force within the meaning of the elements clause.”

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thomas, writing for a 7–2 majority, affirmed. Applying the categorical approach, the Court held that “the knowing or intentional causation of injury or death, whether by act or omission, necessarily involves the ‘use of physical force’”. Relying on Castleman, the majority extended its two-step reasoning: (1) deliberate causation of bodily harm cannot occur without force, and (2) intentional application of force—direct or indirect—is a “use” of force. Although Castleman involved misdemeanor-level battery force and § 924(c) requires “violent force,” another case, Stokeling, established that any force sufficient to cause injury or death meets § 924(c)’s threshold. The Court then rejected Delligatti’s challenge that omissions lack “use” of force “against” another: ordinary usage permits one to “use” a preexisting force by inaction like if a parent were to with food, and “against the person” simply specifies the force’s conscious object. Finally, the historic meaning of “crime of violence,” encompassing causes-and-results offenses like murder by omission, confirmed that indictments for New York second-degree murder fall squarely within § 924(c).

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Jackson, dissented. They argued that the statute’s text—“use…of physical force against the person…of another”—contemplates only active, “violent” physical acts, not omissions. The dissent emphasized that “use” carries an active meaning, that omissions do not involve employing force, and that, contrary to the majority, a statutory definition must prevail over presumed legislative purpose or selective precedential readings.

Physical Force

Section 924(c) defines “crime of violence” through two clauses:
• Elements clause: a federal felony that “has as an element the use…of physical force against the person or property of another.”
• Residual clause: an offense that “by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force…may be used.”

In Davis, the Court invalidated the residual clause for vagueness, leaving only the elements clause. Courts apply the categorical approach, comparing the statutory elements—not a defendant’s conduct—to § 924(c). Dispute centers on “use of physical force”: is it restricted to affirmative, violent acts, or does it encompass knowing causation by omission? The majority embraces a holistic reading—grounded in Castleman, Stokeling, and historical common-law definitions of violent offenses—while the dissent remains faithful to a text-first approach that sees “use” as necessarily active. This interpretive divide reflects broader tensions in criminal law between textual precision, ordinary meaning, and purposive alignment with “prototypical” violent crimes.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

The heart of this case is a fine difference in how a veteran’s disability claim gets reviewed. When the Department of Veterans Affairs decides that evidence for a service-related injury is in “approximate balance,” that call is treated as mostly a factual finding. The Supreme Court said appeals courts must give deference to that factual decision; checking only for clear mistakes while still reviewing any legal questions from scratch. Petitioners had argued for a full, fresh look at all the evidence, but the Court rejected that. In practical terms, the VA’s tie-breaking “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule stands unless a court can point to a clear error.

Summary of the Case

Veterans Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton appealed adverse VA determinations of their service-connected PTSD claims. Bufkin, discharged for hardship, sought VA benefits for PTSD allegedly caused by marital distress in service; the VA denied service connection after three conflicting medical examinations. Thornton, already rated for PTSD and unemployability, sought an increase in his PTSD disability rating; the VA declined to impose more severe symptom findings. Both veterans petitioned the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which applied the “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule and found that neither record was in “approximate balance,” so neither veteran prevailed. The Veterans Court affirmed applying a “[t]aking due account” standard. The Federal Circuit rejected arguments that “take due account” requires full de novo review of approximate-balance determinations. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the scope of the subsection defining "taking due account."

Opinion of the Court

Justice Thomas, writing for a seven-justice majority, held that "taking due account" simply directs the Veterans Court to apply established standards of review. Standards include de novo for legal issues and clear-error for factual issues, to the VA’s benefit-of-the-doubt determinations. The Court parsed the statute's language to “take due account” as an instruction to “give appropriate attention” to the VA’s work “in making the determinations under subsection (a).” Because the “approximate balance” inquiry comprises two steps—(1) assigning weight to individual pieces of evidence (a factual finding) and (2) determining whether the record as a whole meets the “approximate balance” legal standard—it is at most a mixed question. And where a question is predominantly factual, clear-error review is appropriate. The Court rejected analogies to constitutional probable-cause review or criminal sufficiency challenges, which pose principally legal questions warranting de novo review, and found this matter to have considered the essential information.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Gorsuch, dissented. She argued that § 7261(b)(1) was intended to counteract the Veterans Court’s historically deferential handling of benefit-of-the-doubt issues and to require independent, nondeferential review of those determinations. According to the dissent, deciding whether evidence is in “approximate balance” poses a mixed question of law and fact analogous to probable-cause or sufficiency inquiries and thus demands de novo review. She viewed the majority’s reading as rendering subsection (b)(1) superfluous and at odds with Congress’s amendment.

Nuance of the Law

At issue is the interplay among (1) the VA’s statutory “benefit-of-the-doubt” rule, which entitles a veteran to favorable resolution when record evidence is in “approximate balance”; (2) the Veterans Court’s basic review standards; and (3) § 7261(b)(1), which commands the Veterans Court to “take due account” of the VA’s application of § 5107(b). The Court’s holding delineates that challenges to the VA’s benefit-of-the-doubt determinations must be reviewed under the same standards used for other issues under § 7261(a): factual weight assignments are reviewed for clear error, whereas purely legal questions remain subject to de novo review. This preserves Congress’s pro-veteran policy by ensuring that Veterans Courts give due attention to the VA’s benefit-of-the-doubt work without upending the established standard-of-review framework.

Get ready for a deep dive into a fascinating Supreme Court case that's shaking up the legal world. We're about to unpack Diaz v. United States, a ruling that's stirring debate about expert testimony in courtrooms across the nation. At the heart of this decision lies a provocative question: How far can experts go when discussing group behavior without stepping over the line? Stay tuned as we break down the Court's nuanced stance on this delicate balance between expert insight and legal boundaries. You won't want to miss this exploration of justice in action.

In simpler terms, the Court ruled that saying "most people" think or feel a certain way is different from saying that a specific person, like the defendant, thinks or feels that way. This distinction is important because it allows the jury to make their own judgment about the defendant's knowledge and intentions based on the evidence presented.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, and he was joined by several other justices, including John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. However, there was a dissenting opinion from Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had some concerns about this approach.

This case highlights the nuances of how we understand expert testimony in court and the careful balance the law tries to maintain when it comes to a defendant's rights.

Summary of the Case

The case of Diaz v. United States arose from the conviction of Delilah Diaz for importing methamphetamine across the U.S.-Mexico border. During a routine stop, border patrol officers discovered over 54 pounds of methamphetamine hidden in her vehicle. Diaz claimed she was unaware of the drugs, asserting a "blind mule" defense. The government sought to introduce expert testimony from Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Andrew Flood, who would testify that most drug couriers are aware they are transporting drugs. Diaz objected to this testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), which prohibits expert witnesses from stating opinions about a defendant's mental state. The trial court allowed Flood to testify that most couriers know they are transporting drugs, leading to Diaz's conviction. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction, stating that Flood's testimony did not violate Rule 704(b) because it did not explicitly address Diaz's mental state.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Thomas, affirmed the Ninth Circuit's ruling. The Court held that expert testimony regarding the mental state of "most people" in a group does not constitute an opinion about the specific defendant's mental state, thus not violating Rule 704(b). The Court clarified that Rule 704(b) is narrowly tailored to prohibit expert opinions that directly address whether a defendant had the requisite mental state for the crime charged. Since Agent Flood's testimony did not assert that Diaz herself knowingly transported drugs, but rather that most couriers do, it did not infringe upon the rule. The Court emphasized that the ultimate determination of Diaz's mental state was left to the jury, which could consider Flood's testimony as part of the evidence.

Separate Opinions

Justice Jackson filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the Court's decision but emphasizing that Rule 704(b) is party-agnostic. She noted that both the prosecution and defense can present expert testimony regarding the likelihood of a defendant's mental state based on group characteristics, as long as it does not directly address the defendant's specific mental state.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, dissented. He argued that the Court's ruling undermines the intent of Rule 704(b) by allowing expert testimony that indirectly addresses a defendant's mental state through generalizations about a group. Gorsuch contended that this approach could lead to a slippery slope where expert opinions about the mental states of groups could effectively replace the jury's role in determining a defendant's culpability. He stressed that the government should not be permitted to use expert testimony to suggest that a defendant is likely to share the mental state of "most" individuals in a similar situation.

Federal Rule of Evidence

The case highlights the complexities surrounding Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b), which was designed to prevent expert witnesses from usurping the jury's role in determining a defendant's mental state. The rule reflects a balance between allowing relevant expert testimony and preserving the jury's exclusive function in assessing a defendant's culpability. The Court's interpretation emphasizes that while expert testimony can inform the jury about general trends or behaviors within a group, it must not directly address the specific mental state of the defendant. This distinction is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the jury's decision-making process in criminal trials, ensuring that the burden of proof remains with the prosecution and that defendants are not unfairly prejudiced by generalized assumptions about their behavior.

The Supreme Court recently dove into the balance between personal rights and free speech. In the case of Vidal versus Elster, the Court looked at a part of the Lanham Act, which is a law that deals with trademarks. This specific part, known as the names clause, says you can't register a trademark that includes the name of a living person unless you have their permission.

The justices decided that this rule does not go against the First Amendment, which protects our freedom of speech. They explained that while this rule does regulate speech, it does so in a way that is fair and neutral. The Court pointed out that this names clause has a long history in our legal system, which helps support its constitutionality.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, and he was joined by several other justices, including Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch. They all agreed that protecting individuals from having their names used without consent is an important principle that aligns with our traditions.

So, in essence, the Court affirmed that while we cherish free speech, there are also important boundaries in place to protect people's identities and personal rights.

Summary of the Case

The case of Vidal v. Elster arose when Steve Elster sought to register the trademark "Trump too small" for use on apparel, referencing a 2016 presidential debate exchange. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application based on the "names clause" of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of trademarks that consist of or comprise a name identifying a living individual without their consent. Elster argued that this prohibition violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upheld the PTO's decision, but the Federal Circuit reversed, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court held that the names clause of the Lanham Act does not violate the First Amendment. The Court distinguished between content-based and content-neutral regulations of speech, noting that while the names clause is content-based, it is not viewpoint-based. The Court emphasized that the clause does not discriminate against any particular viewpoint; it simply prohibits the registration of trademarks that use another person's name without consent. The Court also noted the historical context of trademark law, which has always included content-based restrictions, and concluded that such restrictions coexist with First Amendment protections. The judgment of the Federal Circuit was reversed, affirming the constitutionality of the names clause.

Separate Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the Court's conclusion that the names clause is constitutional but expressing that a viewpoint-neutral, content-based trademark restriction might be constitutional even without a historical pedigree. Justice Barrett, while concurring in part, disagreed with the Court's reliance on historical tradition as the sole basis for its decision, advocating for a standard that assesses whether such restrictions are reasonable in light of trademark law's purpose.

Dissenting Opinions

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. All Justices agreed on the outcome that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment, although they differed in their reasoning and methodology.

The First Amendment and Trademark Law

The case highlights the nuanced relationship between trademark law and the First Amendment. The names clause is a content-based regulation that restricts the registration of trademarks based on the presence of a person's name. The Court's analysis revealed that while content-based regulations are generally subject to heightened scrutiny, the historical context of trademark law, which has long included such restrictions, suggests that they do not inherently conflict with free speech principles. The Court's decision underscores the importance of historical precedent in evaluating the constitutionality of regulations that, while content-based, do not discriminate against viewpoints. This case sets a precedent for future challenges to trademark restrictions, indicating that historical tradition may play a significant role in determining their constitutionality.

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

The ruling in the case of Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney brings to light some important nuances in labor law. The Supreme Court has made it clear that when the National Labor Relations Board, or NLRB, asks for a preliminary injunction, district courts need to follow a specific four-factor test. This test was first laid out in a previous case, Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council.

In this decision, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's ruling and sent the case back for further consideration. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, and he was joined by several other justices, including both conservative and liberal members of the Court. Interestingly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate opinion that both agreed and disagreed with parts of the majority's view.

This case highlights how the legal system navigates the balance between labor rights and business interests, ensuring that requests for injunctions are carefully evaluated. It’s a reminder of the complexities involved in labor relations and the role of the courts in interpreting these laws.

Summary of the Case

The case of Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney arose after several employees at a Starbucks location in Memphis, Tennessee, announced plans to unionize and invited a local news crew to cover their efforts. Following this media event, Starbucks terminated several employees involved, citing violations of company policy. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) subsequently filed a complaint against Starbucks, alleging unfair labor practices. The NLRB's regional director sought a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to reinstate the fired employees while the administrative proceedings were ongoing. The district court applied a two-part test from Sixth Circuit precedent, which led to the granting of the injunction. The Sixth Circuit affirmed this decision, prompting Starbucks to appeal to the Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split regarding the appropriate standard for evaluating such injunction requests.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, held that district courts must apply the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions as articulated in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008), when considering requests under Section 10(j) of the NLRA. The Court emphasized that Section 10(j) does not displace the presumption that traditional equitable principles govern injunctions. The four factors require the plaintiff to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm in the absence of relief, a balance of equities favoring the plaintiff, and that the injunction is in the public interest. The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit's "reasonable cause" standard as it significantly lowered the threshold for obtaining an injunction, which could undermine the traditional equitable framework.

Separate Opinions

Justice Jackson filed a separate opinion concurring in part, dissenting in part, and concurring in the judgment. While she agreed with the majority that the traditional four-factor test should apply, she argued that the majority's analysis did not adequately consider the statutory context of the NLRA and the NLRB's role in labor disputes. Jackson emphasized that courts should exercise their equitable discretion in a manner informed by Congress's intent, which aims to limit judicial intervention in labor disputes and prioritize the NLRB's authority.

Dissenting Opinions

There were no dissenting opinions in the majority ruling. However, Justice Jackson's opinion can be seen as a partial dissent in that she expressed concern over the majority's approach to the statutory context and the implications for the NLRB's authority.

Labor Disputes and Principled Equity

The law surrounding Section 10(j) of the NLRA is nuanced in that it seeks to balance the need for prompt relief in labor disputes with the traditional principles of equity. The Court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to established equitable standards when granting preliminary injunctions, reflecting a broader judicial reluctance to deviate from historical practices without clear congressional intent. The majority opinion highlighted that while the NLRB has the authority to seek injunctions, the courts must maintain their role as impartial arbiters, ensuring that the traditional four-factor test is applied consistently. Justice Jackson's opinion further elaborated on the historical context of labor law, noting Congress's intent to limit judicial discretion in favor of the NLRB's expertise in resolving labor disputes, thus emphasizing the need for a careful interpretation of the NLRA's provisions.

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

The Supreme Court recently opined on a case that dives into the nuances of how we value corporate shares for tax purposes. In this case, Connelly, as the executor of Michael P. Connelly, Sr.'s estate, took on the United States over how to assess the value of shares held by a corporation.

The Court ruled that a corporation's promise to buy back shares at a certain price doesn't automatically lower the value of those shares when it comes to federal estate taxes. Essentially, the life insurance money that a corporation receives can actually boost its overall value. So, when calculating the worth of shares for tax reasons, that money must be included.

This decision highlights the complexities of tax law and how it can impact the valuation of assets after someone passes away. It’s a reminder that the details matter, especially when it comes to financial obligations and the value of a business.

Summary of the Case

The case of Connelly v. United States arose from a dispute regarding the valuation of shares in a closely held corporation, Crown C Supply, for federal estate tax purposes following the death of Michael Connelly. Michael and his brother Thomas were the sole shareholders of Crown and had an agreement that allowed the surviving brother to purchase the deceased brother's shares or, if declined, required the corporation to redeem those shares. To fund this potential redemption, Crown had obtained life insurance policies on both brothers. After Michael's death, Thomas opted not to purchase Michael's shares, leading Crown to redeem them for $3 million, which was funded by the life insurance proceeds. The estate reported the value of Michael's shares as $3 million, but the IRS contended that the shares should be valued higher, including the life insurance proceeds in the corporation's total valuation, resulting in a tax deficiency. The case was brought to the Supreme Court to determine whether the corporation's obligation to redeem shares constituted a liability that would offset the value of the life insurance proceeds.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, affirmed the lower court's ruling that the corporation's obligation to redeem Michael's shares did not reduce their value for estate tax purposes. The Court held that when calculating the federal estate tax, the value of a decedent's shares in a closely held corporation must reflect the corporation's fair market value, which includes life insurance proceeds as an asset. The Court reasoned that a fair-market-value redemption does not affect a shareholder's economic interest, and thus, a hypothetical buyer would not view the redemption obligation as a liability that diminishes the value of the shares. The Court concluded that at the time of Michael's death, Crown was worth $6.86 million, and therefore, the value of Michael's shares was $5.3 million, leading to the IRS's assessment of additional taxes owed by the estate.

Value of Shares For Estate Tax Purposes

This case revolves around the interpretation of how to value shares in a closely held corporation for estate tax purposes. The Court emphasized that the fair market value of a decedent's shares must be assessed at the time of death, without considering subsequent transactions such as the redemption of shares. The Court clarified that a corporation's contractual obligation to redeem shares does not inherently constitute a liability that offsets the value of life insurance proceeds. This distinction is critical because it underscores the principle that the valuation for estate tax purposes should reflect the total economic value of the corporation, including all assets, rather than being diminished by obligations arising from shareholder agreements. The ruling also highlights the importance of structuring agreements carefully, as the chosen method of funding share redemptions can have significant tax implications.

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

The Supreme Court ruled on a case involving property owners in Texas, led by Richard DeVillier. The Court decided that these property owners can seek compensation for their claims under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. However, they will do this through Texas state law instead of directly under the Fifth Amendment itself.

This ruling overturned a previous decision made by the Fifth Circuit Court, which had said that property owners could not bring their claims against the state under the Takings Clause. The Supreme Court's decision allows these property owners to move forward with their claims, giving them a chance to seek the compensation they believe they deserve.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion, and the decision was supported by several other justices. This case highlights the ongoing conversation about property rights and how they are protected under the law. It’s a significant step for property owners in Texas, as they now have a clearer path to pursue their claims.

Summary of the Case

The case of DeVillier et al. v. Texas arose from a dispute involving property owners, led by Richard DeVillier, whose land was flooded due to the construction of a median barrier along U.S. Interstate Highway 10 by the State of Texas. This barrier was intended to serve as a dam to facilitate food evacuation during storms. However, it resulted in significant flooding of the petitioners' properties during hurricanes and tropical storms, leading to extensive damage. DeVillier filed a lawsuit in Texas state court, claiming that the state had effectively taken his property without just compensation, in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case was removed to federal court, where the Fifth Circuit ruled that the Takings Clause did not provide a right of action against the state, prompting the petitioners to seek Supreme Court review.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, held that property owners like DeVillier could pursue their claims for just compensation under the Takings Clause through the existing cause of action provided by Texas law. The Court clarified that while the Takings Clause is self-executing in terms of the right to compensation, it does not inherently provide a direct cause of action for enforcement. Instead, the Court emphasized that Texas law offers an inverse-condemnation cause of action, allowing property owners to seek compensation for takings. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case, allowing the petitioners to proceed with their claims under Texas law.

The ruling was unanimous.

Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment

The case highlights the nuanced relationship between constitutional rights and the mechanisms for enforcing those rights. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment guarantees just compensation for property taken for public use, but it does not automatically create a cause of action for property owners to sue states directly. Instead, the Court recognized that states may provide their own legal frameworks for addressing such claims, as Texas does through its inverse-condemnation law. This distinction is significant because it underscores the principle that while constitutional rights are fundamental, the procedural avenues for enforcing those rights can vary by jurisdiction. The Court's decision reinforces the idea that states have a responsibility to uphold constitutional protections while also allowing them to establish their own legal processes for addressing claims related to property takings.