March 23, 2020
Davis v. United States (19-5421)
(Per Curiam)
There is no legal basis for the Fifth Circuit’s practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error.
Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African-American Owned Media (18-1171)
A plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in contracting under 42 U. S. C. §1981 bears the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and that burden remains constant over the life of the lawsuit.
Kahler v. Kansas (18-6135)
Due process does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant’s ability to recognize that his crime was morally wrong.
Allen v. Cooper (18-877)
Congress lacked authority to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits in the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990.
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr (18-776)
Because the phrase “questions of law” in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Limited Review Provision, 8 U. S. C. §1252(a)(2)(D), includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts, the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ “factual” due diligence claims for equitable tolling purposes.