On Monday, the justices met for their September 25 conference. The justices removed Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii from the court's October sitting. We expect orders from this conference on Thursday. The October 2017 term will begin on Monday, October 2. The calendar for the October sitting is available on the court's website.

• Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project
  (1) Whether respondents’ challenge to the temporary suspension of entry of aliens abroad under Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780 is justiciable; (2) whether Section 2(c)’s temporary suspension of entry violates the Establishment Clause; (3) whether the global injunction, which rests on alleged injury to a single individual plaintiff, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the challenges to Section 2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017.
• Gill v. Whitford
  (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin’s redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin’s redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court’s test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
• Carpenter v. United States
  Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.
• Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
  Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

see all this Term’s cases »

Array ( [0] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => association-des-eleveurs-de-canards-et-doies-du-quebec-v-harris [post_title] => Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Québec v. Harris [ID] => 209653 ) [1] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => butka-v-lynch [post_title] => Butka v. Sessions [ID] => 250328 ) [2] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => caraffa-v-carnival-corp [post_title] => Caraffa v. Carnival Corp. [ID] => 254362 ) [3] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => collins-v-virginia [post_title] => Collins v. Virginia [ID] => 253780 ) [4] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => el-nahal-v-yassky [post_title] => El-Nahal v. Yassky [ID] => 250982 ) [5] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => elmore-v-holbrook [post_title] => Elmore v. Holbrook [ID] => 243232 ) [6] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => garcia-v-bloomberg [post_title] => Garcia v. Bloomberg [ID] => 253790 ) [7] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => georgiou-v-united-states [post_title] => Georgiou v. United States [ID] => 231013 ) [8] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => gordon-v-bank-of-america-n-a [post_title] => Gordon v. Bank of America, N.A. [ID] => 213021 ) [9] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => little-sisters-of-the-poor-home-for-the-aged-v-burwell [post_title] => Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell [ID] => 231204 ) [10] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => lockwood-andrews-newman-p-c-v-mason [post_title] => Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C. v. Mason [ID] => 254365 ) [11] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => luis-v-united-states [post_title] => Luis v. United States [ID] => 221255 ) [12] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => moodys-corp-v-federal-home-loan-bank-of-boston [post_title] => Moody's Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston [ID] => 245997 ) [13] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => national-institute-family-life-advocates-v-becerra [post_title] => National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra [ID] => 254444 ) [14] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => new-mexico-association-of-nonpublic-schools-v-moses [post_title] => New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses [ID] => 243046 ) [15] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => schulman-v-lexisnexis-risk-and-information-analytics-group-inc [post_title] => Schulman v. LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc. [ID] => 243819 ) [16] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => shakbazyan-v-united-states [post_title] => Shakbazyan v. United States [ID] => 251646 ) [17] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => smithkline-beecham-corp-v-king-drug-co-of-florence-inc [post_title] => SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. [ID] => 239040 ) [18] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => tilton-v-securities-exchange-commission [post_title] => Tilton v. Securities and Exchange Commission [ID] => 251632 ) [19] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => trudeau-v-united-states [post_title] => Trudeau v. United States [ID] => 245338 ) )

Conference of September 25, 2017

• Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
• Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.
• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.

More Petitions »

• Summer symposium on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
• Summer symposium on Christie v. NCAA
• Summer symposium on Gill v. Whitford
• Summer symposium on Carpenter v. United States
• Summer symposium on Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
• Summer symposium on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
• Symposium on October Term 2016’s death-penalty decisions
• Symposium on the court’s ruling in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
• Symposium on the court’s ruling in Matal v. Tam
• Symposium on October Term 2016’s racial-gerrymandering decisions

• Live blog of orders | June 27, 2017
• Live blog of orders and opinions | June 26, 2017
• Live blog of opinions | June 23, 2017
• Live blog of opinions | June 22, 2017
• Live blog of orders and opinions | June 19, 2017

See all