The Supreme Court announced on July 26 that it will hear several high-profile cases in the fall, including a challenge to federal regulations about so-called ghost guns and a shareholder lawsuit against tech giant Nvidia.
Gun Case
The gun case, Garland v. VanDerStok, will be heard on Oct. 8, the court said.“Ghost gun” is a pejorative term used by gun control advocates to describe a homemade firearm that doesn’t have a serial number and therefore can’t be tracked by law enforcement.
Although some states regulate homemade guns, gun control groups have been trying for years to ban or regulate homemade guns at the federal level but have failed to persuade the U.S. Congress to act.
President Joe Biden has claimed that privately made guns, which are often made with gun kits, are the “weapons of choice for many criminals.”
Nvidia Case
The case known as Nvidia Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB will be heard on Nov. 13.
The court’s eventual decision in the case could make it more difficult for shareholders to pursue securities fraud lawsuits.
The case comes after Nvidia agreed in May 2022 to pay the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) $5.5 million to resolve civil charges that the company failed to properly disclose the effect of cryptocurrency mining on its gaming operations. In two quarters in fiscal 2018, the company did not disclose that crypto mining was a “significant element” of its revenue growth from sales of chips made for gaming, the SEC stated.
Based in Santa Clara, California, Nvidia is a high-tech company known for its graphics processors commonly used in artificial intelligence development. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB is an investment management firm in Stockholm.
Investors sued Nvidia claiming that the company misrepresented how dependent it was on revenue from volatile cryptocurrency mining before a market setback in 2018. The company argues that the legal complaint filed against it lacks sufficient specificity to move forward.
A lower court resurrected the proposed class action lawsuit brought by shareholders in California and the Swedish firm against the company. Those suing alleged that Nvidia and senior company officials violated the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making statements that downplayed how much of the company’s revenue growth came from crypto-related transactions.
Death Row Case
The Supreme Court said it will hear oral arguments in the death row appeal of Oklahoma inmate Richard Eugene Glossip on Oct. 9.The case is unusual because the state admitted that it made mistakes in the case and announced its support for the appeal.
The Supreme Court previously blocked Mr. Glossip’s execution in May 2023.
Mr. Glossip was convicted of murdering his employer, Barry Van Treese, in 1997 while employed as manager of a motel in Oklahoma City.
Motel handyman Justin Sneed, who was also convicted in the killing, was spared the death penalty and given life imprisonment without parole as part of a plea bargain in which he agreed to testify against his co-worker.
At the time of the murder, Mr. Sneed, then 19, was a methamphetamine addict whom Mr. Glossip had hired to do maintenance work. Mr. Sneed has since indicated that he wished to recant his testimony.
Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond discovered that prosecutors had withheld materials from the defense.
These items, collectively called “Box 8,” revealed that Mr. Sneed, the prosecution’s star witness, was permitted to present false testimony without disclosing that he had been prescribed lithium by a psychiatrist for a serious psychiatric condition, Mr. Drummond said in a statement.
He recommended that Mr. Glossip’s murder conviction be vacated and the case be remanded back to a lower court.
Despite that, the Court of Criminal Appeals for Oklahoma ruled against Mr. Glossip in April 2023, saying that following two trials, five appeals, and two reprieves, Mr. Glossip had run out of legal options.
“Glossip is neither entitled to post-conviction relief nor a stay of execution,” the state appeals court stated.
Facebook Data-Harvesting Case
The Supreme Court said the case of Facebook Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank will be heard on Nov. 6.According to a shareholder lawsuit, Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc. deceived investors regarding a data-harvesting controversy that involved political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling in the case could have an effect on corporate disclosure standards going forward.
The case involves a private securities fraud-related class action arising out of the now-defunct UK-based Cambridge Analytica’s “wrongful acquisition and misuse of Facebook user data,” Facebook said in a court filing.
Meta agreed in December 2022 to pay out $725 million to settle a class-action proceeding that said the company allowed third parties, including Cambridge Analytica, to access as many as 87 million users’ personal information. The incident was made public in 2018.
Cambridge Analytica in 2016 worked for then-candidate Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign, and had access to personal data from millions of Facebook accounts for purposes of targeting and profiling voters. The account holders did not consent and their data was harvested by means of an app.
The scandal led to government investigations and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was called to testify before Congress.
Overtime Pay Case
The Supreme Court also said it will hear on Nov. 5 a case about the standards of evidence for employers trying to prove that their workers should not qualify for overtime pay and other legal protections provided by U.S. wage laws.The case is E.M.D. Sales Inc. v. Carrera.
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which covers more than 140 million workers, guarantees eligible employees a minimum wage and overtime pay, but also contains 34 exemptions from those mandates. For example, employers do not have to pay overtime to executives, agricultural workers, or outside salesmen.
The legal issue here is whether employers must prove the applicability of an FLSA exemption on a preponderance of the evidence, as six federal courts of appeal hold, or by the more stringent clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, as only the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit holds.
The preponderance of evidence is the normal standard of proof in civil lawsuits. It requires a side to prove that something is more likely than not.
E.M.D. Sales distributes Asian, Caribbean, and Latin American foods to grocery stores in and around the nation’s capital. Three sales representatives sued the company, arguing that they should receive overtime pay because they routinely worked 60 hours per week.
But the company argued in federal district court that they were outside salesmen who did not legally qualify for overtime pay, which normally begins at the 40-hour mark. Because their primary duty involved selling and they generally worked outside of the company’s office, they were exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirement, the company said.
