Petitions / Supreme Court Activity

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. With respect to petitions, while no new petitions were filed with the Court, a party waived its right to respond in a patent case, the government waived its right to respond in a pro se case, and a reply in support of a petition was filed in a takings case. Here are the details.

Granted Cases

There is no new activity to report.

Petition Cases

New Petitions

There is no new activity to report.

Waivers of Right to Respond

Coulter Ventures waived its right to respond in Jump Rope Systems, LLC v. Coulter Ventures, LLC, a patent case raising a question related to inter partes review estoppel.

The government waived its right to respond in Aljindi v. United States, a pro se case. 

Reply Brief

McCutchen filed a reply brief in support of the petition in McCutchen v. United States, a takings case. The petitioners presented the following question to the Court: 

  • “For purposes of the Fifth Amendment’s Taking Clause, does a delegation of general legislative rule-making authority to an agency constitute an inherent restraint on title to any personal property that could be subsequently subjected to a prospective legislative rule, rendering the physical taking of the property non-redressable?”

The petitioners are former owners of bump stock devices who contend that a taking of their property occurred when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms issued a final rule interpreting the statutory term “machinegun” to encompass bump stock devices. In its response in opposition to the petition, the government argued that the pre-existing statutory limitation prohibiting the possession of machineguns was “a valid prior limitation on any property rights petitioners may have had in their bump stocks, which the government could enforce or make more explicit without effecting a taking.” Alternatively, the government argued, it “may prohibit the possession of property ‘injurious to the health or safety of the community’ . . . without effecting a taking.” According to the government, the Court of Federal Claims “correctly identified ATF’s final rule” as a “public-safety measure that does not implicate the Takings Clause.” 

In his reply in support of his petition, McCutchen argues that the Federal Circuit’s decision “allows federal agencies to invoke Chevron deference to confiscate property that was legal when acquired without paying the owner just compensation.” He contends that the government “tries to minimize the impact” of the Federal Circuit’s holding by “concocting a limiting principle,” which allows agencies to “retroactively limit title if the statute is ‘very specific,’ but not if the statute sets out a ‘broadly stated statutory goal.’” According to McCutchen, “that limit is illusory.” McCutchen then argues that “[t]here is no federal police power to confiscate lawfully acquired guns without paying just compensation.” Moreover, McCutchen contends, the “broader issue” is the Federal Circuit’s holding that “both legislative and interpretive rules can retroactively eliminate title to personal property.” McCutchen urges the Court to “decide [this issue] now.”