The U.S. Supreme Court will begin its final set of oral arguments for the 2024 calendar year on Monday, addressing important legal issues ranging from environmental regulations to corporate responsibility. Among the cases to be discussed are disputes over the proper scope of federal environmental reviews, corporate affiliates’ potential liability in trademark infringement cases, and the definition of wire fraud in government contract requirements. The Court will also deliberate on whether military reservists working for the federal government are entitled to differential pay during national emergencies.

Contract Fraud

One of the key cases involves allegations of fraud committed by Pennsylvania businessman Stamatios Kousisis and his company, Alpha Painting & Construction Co. Inc. Kousisis is challenging his conviction for wire fraud, arguing that the state did not suffer harm from his actions in falsely claiming to use a minority-owned business to fulfill contract requirements. In the case, Kousisis and Alpha Painting were accused of falsifying invoices and paying a minority-owned business a 2.25% markup to appear as though they were meeting a government requirement for disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) participation.

The government argues that the failure to comply with the DBE requirement, along with the fact that Pennsylvania specifically allocated funds for DBE-inclusive projects, constitutes fraud under federal law. Kousisis contends that since the bridge repair projects were completed and Pennsylvania received all paid services, there was no actual harm to the state’s property rights. This case, Kousisis et al. v. United States (23-909), raises questions about the scope of federal wire fraud statutes in government contracts.

Differential Pay for Military Reservists

In another case, the Court will hear arguments regarding military reservists and their entitlement to differential pay if called to active duty during a national emergency. The dispute centers on Nick Feliciano, a Coast Guard reservist who served as a federal air traffic controller. Feliciano is seeking differential pay for the 14 months he was on active duty, arguing that his service during a national emergency triggered by the 9/11 attacks should qualify him for the pay. However, a Federal Circuit ruling found that Feliciano could not prove his service was directly related to a military operation.

The case, Feliciano v. Department of Transportation (23-861), will test whether military reservists are entitled to differential pay based solely on their service during a national emergency, or if the service must also be substantively connected to the emergency.

Environmental Reviews Under NEPA

The Court will also hear arguments on the scope of environmental reviews required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A group of Utah counties has asked the Court to reverse a decision that blocked federal approval for a $1.5 billion rail line that would transport crude oil. The project was initially halted due to concerns over its downstream environmental impact, which the counties argue was an overly broad interpretation of NEPA requirements. They contend that agencies are only required to study environmental effects that are a “proximate cause” of the project.

This case, Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County et al. (23-975), will examine whether federal agencies must consider downstream impacts that are merely “reasonably foreseeable.” Environmental groups, on the other hand, argue that the law should include all foreseeable impacts to fully inform the public and agencies of a project’s potential consequences.

Corporate Disgorgement in Trademark Infringement

On Wednesday, the Court will deliberate on whether a court can order the disgorgement of profits from corporate affiliates that were not named in a trademark infringement lawsuit. The case involves Dewberry Group Inc., which was ordered to pay nearly $43 million in disgorged profits after its affiliates generated income from infringing upon Dewberry Engineers Inc.'s trademark. Dewberry Group claims that it should not be held liable for profits made by its affiliates, which were not involved in the infringement.

The case, Dewberry Group Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. (23-900), will assess whether affiliate companies can be forced to pay disgorgement awards if they were not directly named in the lawsuit. The decision will have significant implications for corporate law and the interpretation of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.

These cases reflect a broad range of legal issues, from the intricacies of government contracts to the responsibilities of companies in trademark disputes. As the Court continues to deliberate on these significant matters, its decisions may shape future legal interpretations in areas of environmental law, military benefits, and corporate accountability.