Stephen A Miller

January 09, 2016 | The Legal Intelligencer

The Fourth Amendment provides a consistent stream of litigation to the U.S. Supreme Court. This term is no exception.

By Stephen A. Miller 
and Pamela Dorian

5 minute read

November 20, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Must a plaintiff accept a defendant's surrender? That is the question posed in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No. 14-857—indeed, expressly posed by an exasperated Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. at oral argument, when he upbraided the lead plaintiffs lawyer: "You won't take 'yes' for an answer." In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether a defendant's offer to provide complete relief to the named representative of a proposed class action moots both the representative's individual claim and the claim of the proposed class. This case may significantly impact the landscape of future class-action litigation by determining whether a defendant may stifle putative class claims by "picking-off" the named plaintiff.

By Stephen A. Miller and Nicholas Karwacki

7 minute read

November 19, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Must a plaintiff accept a defendant's surrender? That is the question posed in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No. 14-857—indeed, expressly posed by an exasperated Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. at oral argument, when he upbraided the lead plaintiffs lawyer: "You won't take 'yes' for an answer." In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine whether a defendant's offer to provide complete relief to the named representative of a proposed class action moots both the representative's individual claim and the claim of the proposed class. This case may significantly impact the landscape of future class-action litigation by determining whether a defendant may stifle putative class claims by "picking-off" the named plaintiff.

By Stephen A. Miller and Nicholas Karwacki

7 minute read

November 12, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Article III of the Constitution is the gatekeeper of the federal courts. One of Article III's limitations on federal jurisdiction is the standing doctrine—in short, the requirement that any litigant be able to demonstrate that he or she has been injured in some way. Under longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff must have suffered a harm that is actual, distinct and concrete in order to have standing. An attenuated or hypothetical injury is insufficient and does not constitute an "injury-in-fact."

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

5 minute read

November 11, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Article III of the Constitution is the gatekeeper of the federal courts. One of Article III's limitations on federal jurisdiction is the standing doctrine—in short, the requirement that any litigant be able to demonstrate that he or she has been injured in some way. Under longstanding U.S. Supreme Court precedent, a plaintiff must have suffered a harm that is actual, distinct and concrete in order to have standing. An attenuated or hypothetical injury is insufficient and does not constitute an "injury-in-fact."

By Stephen A. Miller and Leigh Ann Benson

5 minute read

October 08, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

The U.S. Supreme Court gets back to work this month. Each year, the justices seemingly fight hard with each other through late June and then, like boxers, "retire to their corners" over the summer to regroup for another round of fighting. Here are some of the cases that will occupy the justices' attention in the coming months:

By Stephen A. Miller

4 minute read

June 10, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. The consolidated action, captioned as Obergefell v. Hodges, Docket No. 14-556, has sparked widespread media attention, protests, and the filing of 126 amicus curiae briefs. The court will address two questions: (1) whether state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the 14th Amendment; and (2) whether states have the power to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states.

By Stephen A. Miller and Arthur P. Fritzinger

6 minute read

June 09, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage. The consolidated action, captioned as , Docket No. 14-556, has sparked widespread media attention, protests, and the filing of 126 amicus curiae briefs. The court will address two questions: (1) whether state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the 14th Amendment; and (2) whether states have the power to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed in other states.

By Stephen A. Miller and Arthur P. Fritzinger

6 minute read

May 14, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Justice Antonin Scalia succinctly summarized the plaintiffs' position during a recent oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No. 13-1175: "You can't see my register. It's dear to me."

By Stephen A. Miller and Diana Lin

6 minute read

May 13, 2015 | The Legal Intelligencer

Justice Antonin Scalia succinctly summarized the plaintiffs' position during a recent oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in , No. 13-1175: "You can't see my register. It's dear to me."

By Stephen A. Miller and Diana Lin

6 minute read