At the turn of the millennium, corporate scandals at Enron and other corporations like it cost shareholders billions of dollars in lost investments. In their wake, overwhelming majorities in both chambers of Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). The legislation imposed new standards for financial record-keeping and disclosure on publicly traded companies. SOX also provides for a private cause of action for corporate employees who believe they were retaliated against for reporting their firm’s financial wrongdoing to regulators. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A The legislation was an attempt by Congress to correct for a perceived deficiency in federal law where government employees were protected from whistleblower activity but corporate employees were not. Lawmakers reasoned that in complex securities fraud investigations, employees of such firms “are [often] the only firsthand witnesses to the fraud.” Lawson v. FMR LLC, 571 U.S. 429, 435 (quoting S. Rep. No. 107-146 at 10).

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires places of public accommodation, like hotels, to make reasonable modifications to accommodate individuals with disabilities. In accordance with this law, the Attorney General requires hotel owners to identify accessibility features on their websites in sufficient detail to allow individuals with disabilities to assess whether the hotels can meet their needs.

The respondent, Deborah Laufer, a self-appointed ADA “tester” and an individual with a disability has filed over 600 lawsuits against hotel owners and managing companies alleging that their websites are not sufficiently clear about their accessibility features. In these lawsuits, Ms. Laufer seeks injunctive relief and attorney’s fees, forcing smaller businesses to settle to avoid the high cost of litigation.

The problem? Ms. Laufer does not intend to ever visit these hotels. Her lawsuits have forced circuits to address whether testers like herself have Article III standing.

Lisa Muldrow served as a police sergeant for the St. Louis Police Department in the Intelligence Division for nine years. Within the division, Muldrow worked on violent crime cases—primarily in human trafficking and public corruption. Muldrow had experience working in the Gang Unit and as head of the Gun Crimes Unit.

When a new supervisor joined the division, Muldrow and the other women were transferred out of the Intelligence Division without notice. The supervisor, Michael Deeba, purportedly viewed Muldrow’s position in the division as too dangerous for a woman.

The United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service (“Rural Housing Service”) appeals the Third Circuit Court of Appeal’s reversal of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s dismissal of Kirtz’s complaint. Kirtz alleged Rural Housing Service and other defendants, including Trans Union LLC and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not making a good-faith effort to investigate and correct discrepancies in the loan status that appeared on his credit report. The Fair Credit Reporting Act sets forth certain obligations for persons who provide consumer reporting agencies with credit information.

The district court’s grant of dismissal was based on the United States’ sovereign immunity. Quoting Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 192 (1996), the district court reasoned the government’s immunity waiver “must be unequivocally expressed in statutory text.” Further, the courts have held that the scope of that immunity “must be strictly construed in favor of the government, settling any ambiguity in favor of immunity.” United States v. Williams, 514 U.S. 527, 531 (1995). The district court declined to find that the Fair Credit Reporting Act granted such explicit waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity and therefore dismissed Kirtz’s claim.

This case arises from the consolidation of two similar cases. The city of Satsuma, Alabama, seized Ms. Halima Culley’s car after her son was pulled over while driving it and charged with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia. Ms. Lena Sutton’s car was seized after a friend was pulled over by Leesburg, Alabama police while driving and charged with possession of methamphetamine. Culley and Sutton used the innocent-owner defense and obtained summary judgment on the corresponding civil asset forfeiture cases.

The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause is simple, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V. This clause is so essential to the Fifth Amendment that James Madison listed it first amongst the rights granted in the Amendment he proposed to Congress, writing, “No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence.”

The Supreme Court incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause against the states in 1969, stating that the clause “represents a fundamental ideal in our constitutional heritage.” Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 794 (1969). The ideal can be traced from Greek times through English common law. By the time it was incorporated against the States, every single state had incorporated some form of the guarantee against double jeopardy. Id. at 795.

Georgia is testing that ideal, at least according to Damian McElrath.