The Supreme Court of the United States issued one per curiam decision today:

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Assn., No. 14-915:  Petitioner Rebecca Friedrichs and other public school teachers in California brought a challenge to teacher union fees on First Amendment grounds. The petitioners recognized that Supreme Court precedent in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977), as well as Ninth Circuit precedent, foreclosed their claims, but sought to overturn this precedent before the appropriate court. The District Court agreed that precedent foreclosed it from granting petitioners the relief they sought, and accordingly entered judgment on the pleadings, which the Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed. The Court granted certiorari on the issues of: (1) whether Abood should be overruled and public sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech. Neither side could garner a majority, and today the Court issued a per curiam order summarily affirming the judgment by an equally divided Court.

The Court's decision is available here

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the following case yesterday:

Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, No. 15-537: Whether, under Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) and Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009), a vacated, unconstitutional conviction can cancel out the preclusive effect of an acquittal under the collateral estoppel prong of the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court called for the views of the Solicitor General in the following case:

Belize v. Belize Social Development Ltd., No. 15-830: (1) Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as applied to actions seeking enforcement of a foreign arbitral award under the New York Convention, is a foreign forum (here, Belize) per se inadequate (and dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds thus unavailable), because specific assets in the United States cannot be attached by a foreign court, as the D.C. Circuit has held; or is the foreign forum adequate if it has jurisdiction and some attachable assets, as the Second Circuit held?  (2) Under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, does the public policy in favor of arbitration yield where confirmation of an arbitral award would be contrary to countervailing public policies, such as those grounded in constitutional separation of powers principles, combating government corruption and/or international comity? 

Disclosure: Dorsey & Whitney represents the Government of Belize in this matter.