ACC Financial Services Committee Panel on Supreme Court Hot Cases The Supreme Court 2015-2016 had a number of hot cases that impact corporate attorneys in a number of ways. During this panel, judges, professors and lawyers will discuss these cases and their impact on in-house counsel and the broader legal community. *Please note: U.S. Reporter citations are not available yet for these cases.

ACC Financial Services Committee Panel on Supreme Court Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015). Issue: Groups of same-sex couples sued state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states’ ban on same-sex marriages and/or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in other jurisdictions. Holding: Reversed (5-4). S.C ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to allow marriage between same-sex couples and to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in other jurisdictions. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016). Issue: Texas legislature passed a Bill which contained two specific provisions that placed restrictions on abortion clinics and doctors performing abortions in Texas. Holding: Reversed and remanded (5-3). S.C. ruled that both provisions placed an undue burden on abortion access, and therefore violated the Constitution. Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016). Issue: Fisher claimed that The University of Texas’ practice to consider race as part of their admissions process (outside of their admission policy that guarantees admission to the top-ten percent of every in-state graduating high school class – which Fisher did not qualify for) violated the constitution. Holding: Affirmed (4-3). S.C. ruled that the University of Texas’ admissions process did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

ACC Financial Services Committee Panel on Supreme Court Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2016). Issue: Robins initially sued Spokeo for an alleged violation of the FCRA and through various court proceedings a question arose: Can Congress authorize a cause of action based on a violation of a federal statute and therefore confer Article III standing on a plaintiff who has not suffered concrete harm? Holding: Vacated and remanded (6-2). S.C. ruled that the Ninth Circuit did not properly address whether all of the elements of standing were met. S.C issued an opinion which held that in order to have standing under Article III, a plaintiff must show that they have suffered an injury. Zubik v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 1544 (2016). Issue: Certain religious organizations argued that the contraceptive coverage portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the ACA requires organizations to facilitate the provision of insurance coverage for contraceptive services. Holding: Vacated and remanded (unanimous). S.C. vacated the case for further consideration by the lower court and did not reach a decision on the merits of the case. Part of this ruling was predicated upon the fact that insurance companies could provide conceptive coverage through means outside the employer (directly). Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 135 S. Ct. 2311 (2016). Issue: Based on a TCPA case on appeal (Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald) two separate issues arose. First, does a case become moot if a plaintiff receives an offer of complete relief? Second, is derivative sovereign immunity limited to cases of property damage caused by public works projects? Holding: Affirmed and remanded (6-3). S.C ruled that an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot the plaintiff’s case and that a federal contractor is not entitled to immunity as it violated both federal law and the government’s explicit instructions.