Summary: This week the Court issued five opinions and granted review to three new cases. On this episode we review the following cases: Elonis v. United States - Whether conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening. CASE DOCUMENTS Lane v. Franks - Is the government categorically free under the First Amendment to retaliate against a public employee for truthful sworn testimony that was compelled by subpoena and was not a part of the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities? CASE DOCUMENTS Abramski v. United States -Whether a person's statement that they are the actual buyer of a firearm on a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Form 4473 was a false statement “material to the lawfulness of the sale” under 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(6), where petitioner purchased the firearm for his uncle and both he and his uncle were eligible to purchase a firearm. CASE DOCUMENTS Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association - Whether a federal agency must engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act before it can significantly alter an interpretive rule that articulates an interpretation of an agency regulation. CASE DOCUMENTS Nickols v. Mortgage Bankers Association - Whether agencies subject to the Administrative Procedure Act are categorically prohibited from revising their interpretative rules unless such revisions are made through notice-and-comment rulemaking. CASE DOCUMENTS
