U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Recent Episodes
Oyez
A case in which the Court will clarify the pleading standards to show knowledge or intent for Private Securities Litigation Reform Act claims that rely on internal company documents.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).
A case in which the Court will decide whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
A case in which the Court will decide whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the phrase “entitled… to benefits” includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
A case in which the Court will decide whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1).
A case in which the Court will decide whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.
A capital case in which the Court will decide whether to allow Oklahoma to execute Petitioner Richard Glossip after numerous instances of prosecutorial misconduct and other errors, where even the state no longer defends the capital sentence.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a party who obtains a preliminary injunction is a “prevailing party” for purposes of being entitled to attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has the authority to regulate so-called “ghost guns”—that is, firearms without serial numbers that can be assembled from parts.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a plaintiff whose state-court lawsuit has been removed by the defendants to federal court can seek to have the case sent back to state court by amending the complaint to omit all references to federal law.
A case in which the Court will decide whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, and if so to what extent, a former president enjoys presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act—which requires hospitals receiving Medicare funding to offer “necessary stabilizing treatment” to pregnant women in emergencies—preempts an Idaho law that criminalizes most abortions in the state.
A case in which the Court will decide what test courts must use to evaluate the National Labor Relations Board’s requests for injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the denial of a visa to the non-citizen spouse of a U.S. citizen infringes on a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen and, if so, whether the government properly justified that decision.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment prevents a city from enforcing a ban on public camping against homeless individuals.
A case in which the Court will clarify the methodology for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington.
A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, includes acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.
A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge so long as other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder’s stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares for purposes of the federal estate tax.
A case in which the Court will resolve a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Indian Health Service must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional.
A case in which the Court will decide whether to approve a consent decree resolving claims among Colorado, Texas, and New Mexico over the delivery of water from the Rio Grande Basin to Elephant Butte.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, in a prosecution for drug trafficking—where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs—Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the government’s requests to large social media companies that they take steps to prevent the dissemination of purported misinformation constituted coercion and thus transformed those private companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated users’ First Amendment rights.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a New York regulator’s discouragement of companies from doing business with the National Rifle Association after the Parkland school shooting constitutes coercion in violation of the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b).
A case in which the Court will decide whether, when parties enter into an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause, an arbitrator or a court decides whether that arbitration agreement is narrowed by a later contract that is silent as to arbitration and delegation.
A case in which the Court held that, because the relevant rules a time-related directive, a district court can enter a criminal forfeiture order when the time limit specified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure has already passed.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state law restricting social media platforms from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech and requiring them to submit to onerous operational and disclosure requirements violates the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Florida S.B. 7072’s content-moderation restrictions comply with the First Amendment; and whether the law’s individualized-explanation requirements comply with the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a copyright plaintiff can recover damages for acts that allegedly occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit.
A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether to stay the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal emission reductions rule, the Good Neighbor Plan; and (2) whether the emissions controls imposed by the rule are reasonable regardless of the number of states subject to the rule.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff.
A case in which the Court held that a worker need not be employed by a company in the transportation industry to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.
A case in which the Court held that Congress alone must decide whether Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies an individual from running for the office of President.
A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress directly under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action, but it concluded that it did not need to resolve that question to dispose of this case.
A case in which the Court held that a failure to make a disclosure required under Item 303 of SEC Regulation S-K cannot support a private claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in the absence of an otherwise misleading statement.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst?
A case in which the Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether to require the U.S. Trustee to issue refunds for the extra fees paid by debtors in certain districts to address the lack of uniformity identified in Siegel v. Fitzgerald.
A case in which the Court held that respondent’s claims challenging his placement on the No Fly List are not moot because the government's declaration stating that he “will not be placed on the No Fly List in the future based on the currently available information” did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the government provides adequate notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information.
A case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in transfer decisions that cause some harm, not merely "significant" harm.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the 16th Amendment authorizes Congress to tax unrealized sums without apportionment among the states.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violates the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
A case in which the Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was found by a jury to be not guilty by reason of insanity.
A case in which the Court held that an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
A case in which the Court will decide whether the "serious drug offense" definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense or the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the prior state drug offense.
A case in which the Court held that a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive all of the education benefits at once from programs associated with both periods of service.
A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment.
A case in which the Court held that the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.
A case in which the Court held that a public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public.
A case in which the Court will decide what test a district court must apply when determining whether and when a post-deprivation hearing is required under the Due Process Clause.
A case in which the Court will decide whether South Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
A case in which the Court held that under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower need not prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief to succeed on a retaliation claim, only that his protected activity was a “contributing factor” of the unfavorable personnel action.
A case in which the Court held that under federal admiralty law, choice-of-law provisions in maritime contracts are presumptively enforceable under federal maritime law, with narrow exceptions not applicable in this case.
A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a civil rights “tester” has Article III standing to challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act a hotel’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional.
A case in which the Court held that a defendant must satisfy individually each of the three conditions of the “safety valve” provision of 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1) to be eligible for sentencing relief.
A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause; and (2) whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt, plus interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a foreign plaintiff with no alleged connection to the United States can state a cognizable claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act when it suffers an injury to an intangible property.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress’s intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, to preserve the issue for appellate review, a party must reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement.
A case in which the Court will clarify what constitutes an “undue hardship” for an employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when an employee alleges discrimination based on religion.
A case in which the Court will decide whether and when a defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the False Claims Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 require plaintiffs to plead and prove that they bought shares registered under the registration statement they claim is misleading.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Virginia’s offense of accessory after the fact to a felony is an offense relating to obstruction of justice under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on context violates the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the exception in I.R.C. § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) to the notice requirements for an Internal Revenue Service summons on third-party recordkeepers applies to a summons for anyone’s records whenever the IRS thinks that person’s records might somehow help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s liability.
A case in which the Court will decide the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue in a criminal prosecution.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal criminal sentencing law requires a man who was convicted and sentenced for his role in a drug-trafficking-related murder to serve consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.
A case in which the Court will decide what an applicant for a patent must provide to meet the statutory requirement of a description of the invention that would enable a “skilled artisan” to “make and use” the claimed invention.
A case in which the Court will decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i)’s prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection.
A case in which the Court will decide whether New Jersey can withdraw from an interstate compact with New York that created a waterfront commission with police power.
A case in which the Court will consider a challenge to the Biden administration’s student loan forgiveness plan.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a person commits aggravated identity theft any time they mention or otherwise recite someone else’s name while committing a predicate offense.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an internet platform “knowingly” provides substantial assistance under 18 U.S.C. § 2333 merely because it allegedly could have taken more “meaningful” or “aggressive” action to prevent such use, and whether an internet platform whose services were not used in connection with the specific “act of international terrorism” that injured the plaintiff may still be liable for aiding and abetting under Section 2333.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet platforms from liability when their algorithms target users and recommend a third party’s content.
A case in which the Court will decide whether and when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require a student to exhaust his administrative proceedings against the school district when such proceedings would be futile.
A case in which the Court will decide whether U.S. district courts may exercise subject-matter jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions against foreign sovereigns and their instrumentalities under 18 U.S.C. § 3231 and in light of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether federal immigration law bars a federal court of appeals from reviewing an immigrant’s claim that the Board of Immigration Appeals had engaged in impermissible factfinding because the immigrant had not exhausted that claim through a motion to reconsider.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA)’s general grant of jurisdiction to the federal courts over claims against the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico and claims otherwise arising under PROMESA abrogate the Board’s sovereign immunity with respect to all federal and territorial claims.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Labor Relations Act preempts a state-court lawsuit against a union for intentionally destroying an employer’s property during a labor dispute.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which empowers the Federal Labor Relations Authority to regulate the labor practices of federal agencies, also empowers it to regulate the labor practices of state militias.
A case in which the Court will resolve the dispute over the “Independent State Legislature” (ISL) theory—that only a state legislature has the power to regulate federal elections, notwithstanding state courts or constitutional constraints.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, when an individual brings a lawsuit on behalf of the government alleging fraud on the United States, the government has the power to dismiss the lawsuit after initially declining to take over the case, and what standard applies if the government has that power.
A case in which the Court will decide whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m) limits the jurisdiction of appellate courts over an order approving the sale of a debtor’s assets or instead simply limits the remedies available on appeal from such an order.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Biden administration’s revised immigration policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory of fraud, which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s economic decision as a species of property fraud, states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire fraud statute.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a private citizen who holds no elected office or government employment, but has informal political or other influence over governmental decisionmaking, owes a fiduciary duty to the general public such that he can be convicted of honest-services fraud.
A case in which the Court will review the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether federal laws enacted under Congress’s Spending Clause power, such as the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act in this case, allow a plaintiff to file a federal civil rights claim for their violation.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state registration statute for out-of-state corporations confers general personal jurisdiction over the registrant.
A case in which the Court will decide whether federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the Federal Trade Commission’s structure, procedure, and existence.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to consider claims challenging the constitutionality of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s administrative proceedings.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or whether there is a separate violation for each individual account that was not properly reported.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling that a state rule of criminal procedure precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment against him.
A case in which the Court will decide whether federal inmates who did not challenge their convictions on the ground that the statute did not criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief after the Supreme Court clarifies in a retroactively applicable decision invalidating the circuit precedent that kept them from challenging their convictions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether to overrule its decision in Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions.
A case in which the Court will decide what it means for a work of art to be “transformative” for purposes of the Copyright Act’s fair use doctrine.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an oil rig supervisor who makes over $200,000 per year, paid on a daily basis, is entitled to retroactive overtime pay, despite a regulation that carves out an exemption for highly paid executives.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a California law restricting the sale of pork within the state in a way that affects most or all commercial out-of-state farms violates the “dormant” component of the Commerce Clause.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any appeals, or as soon as the state trial court denies DNA testing, despite any appeals.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the U.S. House of Representatives violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the one-year filing deadline for veterans to submit disability claims after they are discharged can be extended under principles of equitable tolling, or whether missing the deadline means forfeiture of retroactive disability benefits from the date they were discharged.
A case in which the Court will decide which state is entitled to unclaimed or uncashed checks issued by MoneyGram Payments Systems.
A case in which the Court will clarify the proper test for determining whether wetlands are “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state has the authority to prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes against Natives on Native American lands.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state has the authority to prosecute non-Natives who commit crimes against Natives on Native American lands.
A case in which the Court will decide the scope of a court’s role in allowing an inmate to develop evidence for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Biden administration must continue to enforce Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to stay in Mexico while they await hearing in U.S. immigration court.
A case in which the Court will consider whether a public school’s attempt to avoid an Establishment Clause claim by forbidding a coach from praying with students during and after a game violates the coach’s rights under the Constitution or Title VII.
A case in which the Court will decide under what legal procedure an inmate may challenge the method by which the state intends to execute him.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a plaintiff may state a claim for relief against a law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the officer’s failure to provide Miranda warnings.
A case in which the Court will clarify what “clear and unmistakable error” means in the context of a veteran’s challenge of a denial of benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) authorizes relief based on a district court’s error of law.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state worker’s compensation law that applies exclusively to certain federal workers violates the principle of intergovernmental immunity.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act violates the uniformity requirement of the Constitution's Bankruptcy Clause by increasing quarterly fees solely in districts under the U.S. Trustee program and not in those under the Bankruptcy Administrator program.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act.
A case in which the Court will decide Congress has the power to abrogate a state’s sovereign immunity from lawsuit pursuant to its constitutional war powers.
A case in which the Court affirmed, via an equally divided Court, that a train that makes a temporary stop in a railyard as part of its unitary journey in interstate commerce is not “in use” and therefore not subject to the Locomotive Inspection Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an airline employee who works as a ramp agent supervisor is a “transportation worker” and therefore not required to arbitrate her wage dispute with the airline.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal law that gives district courts the discretion to order someone in that district to give testimony or produce documents “for use in a foreign or international tribunal” applies to private commercial arbitral tribunals.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, courts are required to consider all measures that might mitigate the grave risk of harm if the child were to return to their country of habitual residence.
A case in which the Court will decide whether North Carolina legislators have a right to intervene in a lawsuit to defend a state voter-ID law.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the arbitration-specific requirement that the proponent of a contractual waiver defense prove prejudice violates the Supreme Court’s instruction that lower courts must “place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts.”
A case in which the Court will decide whether an individual can sue federal officers for First Amendment retaliation claims or for allegedly violating the individual’s Fourth Amendment rights while engaging in immigration-related functions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a physician may be convicted of unlawful distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) even if he “reasonably believed” or “subjectively intended” that his prescriptions fall within that course of professional practice.
A case in which the Court will resolve a dispute over the interpretation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, which prohibits health plans from treating individuals with kidney failure differently in terms of eligibility or access to benefits.
A case in which the Court will consider whether the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in virtually any industry, so long as it considers cost, non-air impacts, and energy requirements.
A case in which the Court will decide whether states with interests should be permitted to intervene to defend a rule when the United States ceases to defend it.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an individual can be prosecuted in the Court of Indian Offenses and also in federal court for the same offense without violating the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act provides the Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities (including bingo) on its lands.
A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether appellees have standing to challenge the statutory loan-repayment limit of 52 U.S.C. 30116(j); and (2) whether the loan-repayment limit violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a district court must or may consider intervening legal and factual developments when deciding whether to “impose a reduced sentence” on an individual under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act of 2018.
A case in which the Court held that a city’s refusal to fly a private religious organization’s flag, which depicts a cross, on a city flagpole violates the organization’s First Amendment rights.
A case in which the Court held that a federal court hearing state-law claims under the FSIA should determine the substantive law by using the same choice-of-law rule applicable in a similar suit against a private party.
A case in which the Court held that the 30-day time limit to file a petition for review in the Tax Court of a notice of determination from the commissioner of internal revenue in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) is not a jurisdictional requirement and thus is subject to equitable tolling.
One of two cases on the docket for this term in which the Court will decide whether noncitizens who have spent more than six months in immigration detention awaiting resolution of their deportation withholding claim are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether they can be released on bond.
One of two cases on the docket for this term in which the Court will decide whether noncitizens who have spent more than six months in immigration detention awaiting resolution of their deportation withholding claim are entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge to determine whether they can be released on bond.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the federal Medicaid Act provides for a state Medicaid program to recover reimbursement for Medicaid’s payment of a beneficiary’s past medical expenses by taking funds from the portion of the beneficiary’s tort recovery that compensates for future medical expenses.
A case in which the Court allowed the Biden administration to enforce nationwide a rule requiring health care workers at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption.
A case in which the Court blocked the Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s challenged rule mandating that employers with at least 100 employees require covered workers to receive a COVID–19 vaccine or else wear a mask and be subject to weekly testing.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state law prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction violates the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the rule in Martinez v. Ryan renders the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act inapplicable to a federal court’s merits review of a claim for habeas relief.
A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s definition of “crime of violence” excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery, which may be completed through an attempted threat alone.
A case in which the Court held that an assessment of fiduciaries' duty of prudence under ERISA requires considering whether they monitored all plan investments and removed imprudent ones.
A case in which the Court will decide whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) preserves the jurisdiction of federal courts to review a nondiscretionary determination that a noncitizen is ineligible for certain types of discretionary relief.
A case in which the Court will decide whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s decision to lower drug reimbursement rates for certain hospitals based on acquisition costs is a reasonable interpretation of the Medicare statute.
A case in which the Court held that compensatory damages for emotional distress are not available for victims of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Department of Health and Human Services followed the correct procedures when it promulgated a rule changing the way it calculates Medicare reimbursement rates for hospitals.
A case in which the Court held that the Austin city code’s distinction between on-premise signs, which may be digitized, and off-premise signs, which may not, does not violate the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide what kind of aid a spiritual adviser can and cannot provide during an execution.
A case in which the Court held that the Constitution does not require Congress to make Supplemental Security Income benefits available to the residents of Puerto Rico.
A case in which the Court held that Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 does not displace the state-secrets privilege.
A case in which the Court held that lack of either factual or legal knowledge can excuse an inaccuracy in a copyright registration under 17 U. S. C. §411(b)(1)(A)’s safe harbor.
A case in which the Court will decide whether New York's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
A case in which the Court held that federal courts do not have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal question.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the First Amendment restricts the authority of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in response to a member’s speech.
A case in which the Court allowed abortion providers to pursue a pre-enforcement action against certain defendants but not others over a state law that prohibits the exercise of a constitutional right by delegating to the general public the authority to enforce that prohibition through civil actions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the United States may sue the State of Texas in federal court to prohibit enforcement of an unconstitutional abortion law.
A case in which the Court reinstated the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
A case in which the Court held a civil service pension received for federal civilian employment as a “military technician (dual status)” is not “a payment based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service” for the purposes of the Social Security Act’s windfall elimination provision.
A case in which the Court held that a plaintiff who seeks to bring a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal process need only show, as a threshold matter, that the criminal proceeding against him ended without a conviction.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state attorney general should be permitted to intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute and no other state actor will defend the law.
A case in which the Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in rejecting the United States’s assertion of the state-secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential harms to national security on matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities.
A case in which the Court held that a criminal defendant, whose argumentation or introduction of evidence at trial “opens the door” to the admission of responsive evidence that would otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence, does not also forfeits his right to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the Confrontation Clause.
A case in which the Court held that a federal court deciding whether to grant habeas relief must apply both the test the Supreme Court outlined in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, and the one Congress prescribed in the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).
A case in which the Court held that, under the Armed Career Criminal Act, offenses that were committed as part of a single criminal spree but sequentially in time were not “committed on occasions different from one another” for purposes of a sentencing enhancement.
A case in which the Court held that the judicial remedy of equitable apportionment is appropriate to resolve a dispute over groundwater rights between Mississippi and Tennessee.
A case in which the Court held that pre-August 3, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) do not have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act and thus are not eligible for sentence reduction.
A case in which the Court held that the First Amendment limits but does not entirely prohibit regulation of off-campus student speech by public school officials.
A case in which the Court held that the Natural Gas Act delegates to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate-holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent-domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest, and that it abrogates state sovereign immunity in such cases.
A case in which the Court held that, in order to qualify for a hardship exemption under Section 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) of the Renewable Fuel Standards, a small refinery need not receive uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011.
A case in which the Court held that a defendant who has been charged with unlawful reentry into the United States after removal and is seeking dismissal of the charge must prove each of the requirements described in the statute governing such actions.
A case in which the Court held that Guam can pursue a contribution action against the U.S. Navy for its role in the environmental hazards arising from the Navy’s landfill on the island of Guam, known as the Ordot Dump.
A case in which the Court struck down a policy of the California attorney general’s office requiring charities to disclose the names and addresses of their major donors as violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
A case in which the Court held that district courts do not have the discretion to deny or reduce appellate costs deemed “taxable” in district court under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(e).
A case in which the Court upheld, with limitations, the doctrine of assignor estoppel in patent infringement cases where the defendant asserts the defense of invalidity.
A case in which the Court held that under 18 U.S. C. §922(g)(1), to obtain plain-error relief, a defendant must make a sufficient argument or representation on appeal that he would have presented evidence at trial that he did not know he was a felon.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a), is automatically entitled to plain-error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that offense is knowledge of his status as a felon, regardless of whether he can show that the district court’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings.
A case in which the Court held that the Alaska Native regional and village corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are “Indian Tribe[s]” for purposes of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act.
A case in which the Court held that under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of temporary protected status does not constitute an “admission” into the United States and thus does not authorize eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)’s prohibition on compensation for college athletes violates federal antitrust laws.
A case in which the Court held that a subset of a class of plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue a credit reporting agency because they did not suffer an injury comparable to that of the class representative.
A case in which the Court held that a defendant in a securities class action has the burden of production and also the burden of persuasion to rebut the so-called Basic presumption.
A case in which the Court held that the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement does not extend to the home.
A case in which the Court held that a police officer for a Native American tribe has the authority to detain and search a non-tribe member within a reservation on suspicion of violating a state or federal law.
A case in which the Court held a California regulation granting labor organizations a “right to take access” to an agricultural employer’s property to solicit support for unionization constitutes a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment?
A case in which the Court held that a person seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act does not forfeit their ability to challenge the appointment of an administrative law judge if they fail to raise that challenge during administrative proceedings.
A case in which the Court upheld Arizona’s policy of not counting provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct and Arizona’s law permitting only certain persons to handle another person’s completed early ballot against challenges under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fifteenth Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the appointment of administrative patent judges by the Secretary of Commerce violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
A case in which the Court held that the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement is not categorically triggered when police are pursuing a suspect whom they believe committed a misdemeanor.
A case in which the Court held that a court of appeals cannot presume that an immigrant’s testimony is credible and true simply because an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals did not specifically find that he was not credible.
A case in which the Court held that Florida could not show that it Georgia had caused harm to its oyster fisheries and thus was not entitled to equitable or injunctive relief.
A case in which the Court held that federal law permits a court of appeals to review any issue included in a district court’s order sending a case to state court when the move to state court is based on two statutes, not just the ground for removal itself.
A case in which the Court held that the Federal Communications Commission’s 2017 decision to repeal or modify three of its media ownership rules was not arbitrary or capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.
A case in which the Court held that Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, by authorizing “injunction[s],” does not authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to demand monetary relief such as restitution.
A case in which the Court held that a request for nominal damages satisfies the redressability element necessary for Article III standing where a plaintiff’s claim is based on a completed violation of a legal right.
A case in which the Court held that Section §1231, not §1226, applies to the detention of a nonresident who is subject to a reinstated removal order and who is pursuing withholding or deferral of removal.