The plans at issue in this case are run by church-affiliated non-profits, but were not established by a church. Doesn't matter, the Court says..
Sotomayor has two opinions.
The first is Honeycutt v. United States. Unanimous except for Gorsuch.
Court reverses Sixth Circuit.
The Court holds that forfeiture pursuant to the Comprehensive Forfeiture Act of 1984, which mandates forfeiture of any property "constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of" some drug crimes, is limited to property that the defendant himself actually required as the result of the crime.
This means that the statute cannot require forfeiture by Terry Honeycutt, the petitioner in the case, who had no ownership interest in his brother's store and did not personally benefit from the illegal sales at issue.
Put another way, the question is whether a defendant like Honeycutt can be held jointly and severally liable for property that his co-conspirator derived from the crime but the defendant himself did not acquire. The court says no.
Next up from Sotomayor: Kokesh v. SEC. It is unanimous, including Gorsuch.
At issue in this case is whether a federal law imposing a 5-year statute of limitations on any "action, suit, or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture" applies to claims for disgorgement that are imposed as a penalty for violating a federal securities law.
The court says yes: Disgorgement in the securities-enforcement context is a "penalty" within the meaning of that 5-year statute of limitations; therefore, disgorgement actions must be started within five years of when the claim accrues.
The Tenth Circuit's decision is reversed.
There are still more opinions to come. And just to review, they could come from any of the justices except Gorsuch, Kagan, or Sotomayor.
Going back to wait for more opinions.
And we have our final opinion today. Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, by Alito. It is unanimous.
Also another April opinion, so Gorsuch participated.
The Second Circuit's ruling is vacated and remanded.
Here's what we have from the opinion. The parties do not dispute, and the court holds, that a litigant who wants to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) must have Article III standing -- that is, a right to sue -- if the intervenor wants to pursue relief that is different from what the plaintiffs are seeking.
But, the court says, it isn't clear whether the intervenor in this case -- a real estate developer called Laroe Estates -- is actually seeking different relief. Because the Second Circuit didn't resolve this issue, the Supreme Court vacates the decision below and sends it back for the lower court to resolve that question.
The decision barely makes it onto page 9, for what it's worth.
Okay, that's all I have for today. Going to get writing on today's orders. We have no reason to believe that there will be opinions next week; assuming that holds true, we will see you next Monday morning! Thanks so much for joining us.
Thanks, everybody! And following up that last question -- whether it's Thursday or Monday or another time -- we'll be here!
Submit Event
