Justice Department Unveils New Strike Force. Court Will Address Damages for Religious. Freedom Violations. Court Will Consider SEC Disgorgement Remedies

• Author: Steven J. Mintz
• Pages: 9-9

Published in Litigation News Volume 45, Number 3, Spring 20 20. © 2020 by the Ameri can Bar Association. Re produced with per mission. All rights re served. This info rmation or any porti on thereof may not be c opied or disseminated in any

form or by any means or sto red in an electronic da tabase or retrieval sy stem without the ex press writt en consent of the Amer ican Bar Associatio n.

AMERICA N BAR ASSOCIATION SPRING 20 20 • VOL. 45 NO. 3 | 9

KEEPING WATCH EMERGING DEV ELOPMENTS FOR LITIGATORS

++Justice Department Unveils New Strike Force

++Court Will Address Damages for Religious

Freedom Violations

++Court Will Consider SEC Disgorgement Remedies

EXECUTIVE BRANCH

Procurement Collusion

The Justice Department announced

the formation of a new P rocurement

Collusion Strike Fo rce for the pur-

pose of deterring , investigatin g, and

prosecuting antitrust and related

fraudulent schemes that undermine

competition in govern ment procure-

ment, grant, and program funding.

The strike force will be a n interagen-

cy partners hip and will begin with a

focus on 13 feder al judicial dist ricts

throughout the country.

U.S. SUP REME COUR T/

JUDICIARY

Bankruptcy/Appealability

The Court he ld that a bankruptc y

court’s orde r unreservedly granting

or denying a creditor ’s motion for

relief from the auto matic stay

constitutes a f‌inal , immediately

appealable o rder under 28 U.S.C.

§ 158(a). Ritzen Group, I nc. v.

Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 18-938.

Bankruptcy/Return of

Property

The Court gra nted certiorari to re-

solve a circuit split on wh ether, as

stated by the petition , “an e ntity

that is passively retaining possession

of property i n which a bankruptc y

estate has an intere st has an arma -

tive obligation under the bankruptcy

code’s automatic stay, 11 U. S.C.

§ 362, to return that pro perty to the

debtor or trustee im mediately upon

the f‌iling of the ban kruptcy petition.”

City of Chicago , Illinois v. Fulton,

No . 19- 357.

Debt Collection

The Court he ld that, absent th e ap-

plication of an eq uitable doctrine,

the one-year sta tute of limitations

in the Fair Debt Colle ction Practices

Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S .C. § 1692k(d),

begins to run on the d ate on which

the alleged FD CPA violation occurs ,

not the date on which th e violation is

discovered . Rotkiske v. Klemm,

No. 18 -328.

Immigration

A noncitizen may not app ly for relief

from deportation, including asylum

and cancella tion of removal, if he or

she has been convi cted of a disquali-

fying oens e listed in the federal

Immigration an d Nationality Act. The

Court grante d certiorari to reso lve a

circuit split on whet her, as stated by

the petition, “a [state] criminal con -

viction bars a no ncitizen from ap-

plying for relief f rom removal when

the record of convictio n is merely

ambiguous as to wh ether it cor-

responds to an oe nse listed in the

Immigration an d Nationality Act.”

Pereida v. Barr, No. 19 -438.

Patents

The Court he ld that when the

U.S. Patent and Trademark Oce

(USPTO) denies a patent a pplica-

tion and the unsuccessful applicant

elects to bring a c ivil action against

the director of the U SPTO in federal

district cour t, the USPTO’s entitle-

ment to “[a]ll the expenses of the

proceedings ” under 35 U. S.C. § 145

does not inclu de the salaries of i ts

legal person nel. Peter v. NantKwest,

Inc., No. 18-801.

AND MORE . . . BY ST EVEN J. MIN TZ, LITIGATION NEWS ASSOCIATE EDITOR

Railroads

The Court gra nted certiorari to re-

solve a circuit split on wh ether, as

stated by the petition , “under Section

5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment

Insurance Act , 45 U.S.C. § 355(f), an d

Section 8 of the Rai lroad Retirement

Act, 45 U.S .C. § 231g, the Railroad

Retirement Boa rd’s denial of a re-

quest to reopen a p rior benef‌its

determination is a ‘ f‌inal decision’

subject to judic ial review.” Salinas v.

United States Railro ad Retirement

Board, No. 19-199.

Religious Freedom

The Court gra nted certiorari to

decide, as sta ted by the petition,

“whether the Religious Freedom

Restoration Act of 1 993, 42 U.S .C.

§ 2000bb et se q., permits suit s

seeking money damages against

individual fe deral employees .” FNU

Tanz in v. Ta nvi r, No. 19-71.

Securities

The Court gra nted certiorari to de-

cide, as stated by the p etition,

“[w] hether the Securities and

Exchange Com mission may seek a nd

obtain disgorg ement from a cour t as

‘equitable rel ief’ for a sec urities law

violation even thoug h this Court has

determined that such disgorgement

is a penalty.” Liu v. Secur ities and

Exchange Commission, No. 18-15 01.