The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in five cases this morning:

United States v. Juvenile Male, No. 09-940: The Ninth Circuit had held that the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA), 42 U.S.C. § 16901, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution when applied to juveniles adjudicated as delinquents before SORNA's enactment. In a per curiam opinion, the Court today concluded that because the respondent juvenile was now 21 and would never again be subject to an order imposing special conditions of juvenile supervision, the issue was moot, and the Court of Appeals had no authority under Article III to enter that judgment because it had no live controversy before it.

The Court's decision is available here.

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, No. 10-76: Respondents filed a wrongful-death suit in their home state of North Carolina after their sons died in a bus accident in Paris, France. The accident was allegedly caused by tire failure, and suit was brought against Goodyear USA and the three petitioners, Goodyear subsidiaries organized and operating in Luxembourg, Turkey, and France. Over objection, the state court asserted jurisdiction over the three foreign subsidiaries, and the state appellate court affirmed. Today, the Court reversed, holding that the foreign subsidiaries were not subject to jurisdiction on claims unrelated to any activity of theirs in the forum State.

The Court's decision is available here.

J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. V. Nicastro, No. 09-1343: Respondent was injured by a machine manufactured in England by petitioner, which is also incorporated and operates in that country. Respondent brought suit in New Jersey, where the injury had occurred, and the state court found personal jurisdiction to exist because a U.S. distributor agreed to sell the petitioner company's machines in the U.S.; company officials attended trade shows in the U.S., although not in New Jersey; and four of the company's machines were in New Jersey. The State Supreme Court found no due process concerns, invoking the "stream-of-commerce" jurisdiction doctrine. The Court today reversed, with the four-justice opinion announcing the judgment holding that the "stream-of-commerce" doctrine does not displace the jurisdictional requirement that the defendant purposely avail itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State.

The Court's decision is available here.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., No. 08-1448: Respondents, representing the video-game and software-industries, filed a preenforcement challenge to a California law restricting the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The Federal District Court concluded that the Act violated the First Amendment and enjoined the law's enforcement. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. Today, the Court affirmed, holding that video games qualify for First Amendment protection, and because the California law imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless the State can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny, a standard the State did not meet.

The Court's decision is available here.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, No. 10-238: Under Arizona's campaign public financing law, once a set spending limit is exceeded, a publicly financed candidate receives roughly one dollar for every dollar spent by an opposing privately financed candidate, or by an independent expenditure group supporting the privately financed candidate, or opposing the publicly financed candidate. The Court today held that Arizona's matching funds scheme substantially burdens protected political speech without serving a compelling state interest and therefore violates the First Amendment.

The Court's decision is available here.

The Court also granted review in eleven cases today:

Nat'l Meat Ass'n v. Harris, No. 10-224: Whether the Federal Meat Inspection Act, which governs the inspection and humane handling of livestock at federally-inspected slaughterhouses, expressly preempts California Penal Code § 599f, which requires that non-ambulatory, or "downer" livestock, be immediately euthanized and barred from sale for human consumption, while federal law calls for such animals to be inspected and passed for human consumption if not otherwise adulterated.

Messerschmidt v. Millender, No. 10-704: 1) Whether officers are entitled to qualified immunity where they obtained a facially valid warrant to search for firearms, firearm-related materials, and gang-related items in the residence of a gang member and felon who had threatened to kill his girlfriend and fired a sawed-off shotgun at her? 2) Whether the standards from United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), and Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), should be reconsidered or clarified.

Caraco Pharmaceutical v. Novo Nordisk A/S, No. 10-844: Whether the counterclaim provision in the Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(C)(ii)(I), applies where 1) there is "an approved method of using the drug" that "the patent does not claim," and 2) the brand submits "patent information" to the FDA that misstates the patent's scope, requiring "correct[ion]."

Coleman v. Court of Appeals of MD, No. 10-1016: Whether Congress constitutionally abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it passed the self-care leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Knox v. Service Employees Int'l Union, No. 10-1121: May a State, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, 1) condition employment on the payment of a special union assessment intended solely for political and ideological expenditures without first providing a Hudson notice including information about that assessment and providing an opportunity to object to its extraction, and 2) condition continued employment on the payment of union agency fees for purposes of financing political expenditures for ballot measures?

Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC, No. 10-1195: Did Congress divest the federal district courts of their federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over private actions brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?

Kappos v. Hyatt, No. 10-1219: 1) Whether the plaintiff in an action under 35 U.S.C. § 145 may introduce new evidence that could have been presented to the agency in the first instance. 2) Whether, when new evidence is introduced under Section 145, the district court may decide de novo the factual questions to which the evidence pertains, without giving deference to the prior decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

United States v. Jones, No. 10-1259: 1) Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on respondent's vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment; 2) Whether the government violates respondent's Fourth Amendment rights by installing the GPS tracking device on his vehicle without a valid warrant and without his consent.

Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds, No. 10-1261: Whether the two-year time limit for bringing an action under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is subject to tolling, and, if so, whether tolling continues even after the receipt of actual notice of the facts giving rise to the claim.

Martel v. Clair, No. 10-1265: Whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is entitled to replace his court-appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer just because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence.

FCC v. Fox Television Stations, No. 10-1293: Whether the Federal Communications Commission's current indecency-enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.