Stephen A Miller

February 07, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

Most Americans carry a cellphone with them at all times. Little do they know that they are constantly transmitting information about their whereabouts to their phone service provider.

By Stephen A. Miller and Rachel Collins Clarke

6 minute read

January 11, 2018 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Supreme Court has again been asked to resolve a closely watched dispute involving discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The court heard oral argument in December in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which, unlike prior challenges in this area, involves the First Amendment.

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

5 minute read

December 04, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Supreme Court is currently considering the intersection of two federal statutes governing workplace disputes.

By Stephen A. Miller and Haryle Kaldis

8 minute read

November 09, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Supreme Court is preparing to make a ruling that could effectively open the doors to legalized sports gambling. In Christie v. NCAA, the court will decide whether a federal statute that requires states to prohibit sports gambling violates the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment.

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

5 minute read

October 10, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Partisan gerrymandering is the configuring of election districts to advantage one political party over the other. The Supreme Court will address the constitutionality of that practice in one of the most highly anticipated cases of the current term.

By Stephen A. Miller and William A. Lesser

6 minute read

September 06, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Supreme Court will spring back into action next month. No more limping forward while awaiting a full bench. Instead, the court will open its new term with the full complement of nine justices and dive into a blockbuster slate of oral arguments: travel ban, political gerrymandering, fundamental questions of criminal law, etc.

By Stephen A. Miller

9 minute read

May 04, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Lester Gerard Packingham Jr. ­celebrated the dismissal of a traffic ticket by posting "G-d is Good" on Facebook. He was then arrested and convicted of a felony for this post—North Carolina law prohibits registered sex ­offenders to access social media sites open to children. Now, the justices of the Supreme Court will determine whether this North Carolina law violates the First Amendment.

By Stephen A. Miller 
and William A. Lesser

9 minute read

April 04, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

Plaintiffs in patent-infringement cases enjoy tremendous discretion in ­selecting the venue in which they bring suit. The district that receives the most such cases—perhaps because of perceived plaintiff-friendly discovery rules—is the Eastern District of Texas.

By Stephen A. Miller 
and Matthew Coin

14 minute read

March 09, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

At a recent oral argument, Justice Elena Kagan described the ­U.S.-Mexico border as a jurisdictional "no-man's land." The Supreme Court confronted those jurisdictional limits in Hernández v. Mesa, a case arising from the fatal shooting of a Mexican teenager (Sergio Hernández) by a U.S. border patrol agent; the American officer shot from a position in the United States and wounded Hernández at a location across the border in Mexico.

By Stephen A. Miller 
and William A. Lesser

10 minute read

February 08, 2017 | The Legal Intelligencer

The federal criminal forfeiture ­statute, 21 U.S.C. Section 853(a), provides that any person convicted of a ­federal drug crime must forfeit "any property ­constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, ­directly or indirectly, as the result of such ­violation." In Honeycutt v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine the reach of that statute in drug conspiracy cases. Specifically, the court will examine whether the statute requires all members of the conspiracy to be held jointly and severally ­liable for the forfeiture of all reasonably foreseeable proceeds of the conspiracy—even a co-conspirator that never personally ­"obtained" any proceeds.

By Stephen A. Miller 
and Haryle Kaldis

11 minute read