Five Federal Cases Every Lawyer Should Follow in 2018

Now that we’re diving headfirst into March, it seems that 2018 is already turning out to be a momentous year. So far, the world has received an amazing blockbuster from the lush landscapes of Wakanda, and now, it’s time to turn the focus towards the courtrooms and find out the latest happenings in the Judicial System.

With the top court back to its full capacity of nine judges, it looks like the judicial hierarchy is stronger than ever. You can confidently say that they are prepared for the most momentous group of cases, with the intention of rightfully ruling on critical federal cases brought to light.

If you are an aspiring lawyer or just beginning to practice, here are the top five cases you should look forward to this year:

Patchak v. Zinke

The Supreme Court is currently questioning whether Congress is able to direct certain outcomes before federal courts handle the cases

The Supreme Court’s current term raises plenty of queries on how the courts will handle cases regarding separation of powers during Trump’s tenure as president.

That’s why Patchak inquires whether it is constitutional that a federal statute hinders an American the right to follow through with a pending lawsuit and whether it goes against the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

The origin of the case is as follows; In 2005, the federal government handed over some land in Western Michigan to the Gun Lake tribe, which was later turned into a casino. David Patchak happens to live in proximity to the casino and has claimed that the construction of the casino, as well as its daily operations, have caused him great injury. Patchak later came forth with a lawsuit directed towards the U.S. government. The Supreme Court will now handle the case and decide whether the government will be able to steer courts to dismiss any pending lawsuits by putting in place new statues.

Rubin v. the Islamic Republic of Iran

A lawsuit was filed against Iran for their role in providing support to the terrorists that engineered the 1997 terrorist attack in Jerusalem. The eight victims that filed the lawsuit are of U.S. origin, and the federal judge ruled in their favor during the verdict, demanding that Iran pay $71.5 million for damages. Iran never followed up with the payment. The victims further proceeded to bring forth cases pertaining to Iranian assets around the world so as to gratify the judgment that was passed by the district court.

To summarize, Rubin focuses on whether the property of a foreign nation’s property is located in the U.S. cannot be attached to the owning country’s deeds as well as execution.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees

A case filled with controversy, the high court’s Janus decision could result in a dramatic shift of political power that is held quite dearly by public-sector unions.

In 2016, the Supreme Court looked self-assured to upturn a previous ruling that stated any public-sector employ who was not part of a given union was to still to pay union cost fees when in the negotiation of a contract that affected all employees. However, due to uneventful death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the case was left with a 4-4 split vote.

Now that Scalia was replaced by Gorsuch, the case has been taken up again. And the unions will have to wait and see whether they will be disappointed this time around or not.

Christie v. NCAA

Dec. 11, 2016 – New Jersey governor Chris Christie talking with one of Dallas Cowboys’ receiver Dez Bryant (88)

Now here’s one case every lawyer would love to see its final ruling. In fact, the ruling could change the overall structure of gambling in the U.S. as we know it. The case involves the New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie, going head to head with some of the largest sporting leagues in the United States.

This is in response to the Garden State’s repeal on a number of prohibitions that quite frankly, rattled various sports leagues and dishonored a federal law that forbade certain kinds of sports gambling.

Carpenter v. the United States

There has been a pretty heated debate about the limits to government surveillance pertaining to how fast technological advancements are taking place.

In fact, in the Carpenter case, one of the most crucial topics will be the constitutionality of law enforcement. That is, does the law have the right to seize and peruse a user’s cellphone records in order to reveal their whereabouts as well as their movement? The judges’ verdict on this case could certainly set precedence to the limits and boundaries placed on government surveillance for the next couple of years.