The Supreme Court of the United States issued decisions in three cases today:

Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14-1382:  Plaintiff corporations, including respondent ConAgra Foods, Inc., brought suit in Kansas state court against the owner of a food-storage warehouse, now known as Americold Realty Trust.  Americold removed the suit to Federal Court, which retained jurisdiction and found in Americold’s favor on the merits.  On appeal, the Tenth Circuit found that because Americold was a “real estate investment trust,” not a corporation, its citizenship was determined by its “members.”  It then concluded that because there was no record of the citizenship of Americold’s shareholders, the diversity jurisdiction requirements were not satisfied.  Today, the Court affirmed, holding that, while humans and corporations can assert their own citizenship, other entities take the citizenship of their members.

The Court's decision is available here.

V.L. v. E.L., No. 15-648:  Two women, V.L. and E.L., were in a relationship from 1995-2011.  E.L. gave birth to children during that time period, whom V.L. and E.L. raised as joint parents, and whom V.L. formally adopted in Georgia court as a second parent.  V.L. and E.L. ended their relationship in 2011, and were living in Alabama at that time.  V.L. then filed a petition in Alabama state court to obtain visitation rights as a parent, which the Family Court awarded.  The Alabama Supreme Court, however, reversed, determining that the Georgia court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to allow V.L. to adopt while still recognizing E.L.’s parental rights, and thus, that decision was not entitled to full faith and credit.  The Court today reversed, holding in a per curiam decision that because the Georgia judgment appears on its face to have been issued by a court with jurisdiction, and there is no established Georgia law to the contrary, the Alabama Supreme Court in turn erred in refusing to grant that judgment full faith and credit.

The Court's decision is available here.

Wearry v. Cain, No. 14-10008:  Petitioner Michael Wearry  was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a Louisiana jury.  Wearry sought postconviction relief in state court, arguing in part that the prosecution had failed to disclose evidence supporting his innocence, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).   The state courts, including the Louisiana Supreme Court, denied relief.  Today, the Court reversed in a per curiam decision, holding that the prosecution’s failure to disclose material evidence violated Wearry’s due process rights.

The Court's decision is available here.