The court released its order list from the June 15 conference on Monday. The court granted Gill v. Whitford, called for the views of the acting solicitor general in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling, and released a per curiam opinion in Jenkins v. Hutton. On Monday the court also released opinions in five argued cases: Matal v. Tam (formerly known as Lee v. Tam); Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County; McWilliams v. Dunn; Packingham v. North Carolina and Ziglar v. Abbasi. On Thursday the court released opinions in three argued cases: Maslenjak v. United States, Turner v. United States and Weaver v. Massachusetts. On Thursday the justices met for their June 22 conference; our list of "petitions to watch" for that conference is available here. On Friday the court released opinions in three argued cases: Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Murr v. Wisconsin and Lee v. United States.

• Lee v. United States
  Jae Lee has demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his counsel's erroneous advice that he would not be deported as a result of pleading guilty to an aggravated felony.
• Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board
  The proper review forum when the Merit Systems Protection Board dismisses a mixed case -- a complaint by an employee of a serious adverse employment action attributable, in whole or in part, to bias based on race, gender, age or disability -- on jurisdictional grounds is district court.
• Murr v. Wisconsin
  The Court of Appeals of Wisconsin was correct to analyze the lot owners' property as a single unit in assessing the effect of the challenged governmental action.

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] => caraffa-v-carnival-corp [post_title] => Caraffa v. Carnival Corp. [ID] => 254362 ) [2] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => el-nahal-v-yassky [post_title] => El-Nahal v. Yassky [ID] => 250982 ) [3] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => elmore-v-holbrook [post_title] => Elmore v. Holbrook [ID] => 243232 ) [4] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => garcia-v-bloomberg [post_title] => Garcia v. Bloomberg [ID] => 253790 ) [5] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => georgiou-v-united-states [post_title] => Georgiou v. United States [ID] => 231013 ) [6] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => gordon-v-bank-of-america-n-a [post_title] => Gordon v. Bank of America, N.A. [ID] => 213021 ) [7] => 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 ) [8] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => lockwood-andrews-newman-p-c-v-mason [post_title] => Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C. v. Mason [ID] => 254365 ) [9] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => luis-v-united-states [post_title] => Luis v. United States [ID] => 221255 ) [10] => 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 ) [11] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => national-institute-family-life-advocates-v-becerra [post_title] => National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra [ID] => 254444 ) [12] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => new-mexico-association-of-nonpublic-schools-v-moses [post_title] => New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses [ID] => 243046 ) [13] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => santander-holdings-usa-inc-v-united-states [post_title] => Santander Holdings USA, Inc. v. United States [ID] => 254435 ) [14] => 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 ) [15] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => shakbazyan-v-united-states [post_title] => Shakbazyan v. United States [ID] => 251646 ) [16] => 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 ) [17] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => sokolow-v-palestine-liberation-organization [post_title] => Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization [ID] => 253875 ) [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 June 22, 2017

• 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.
• Santander Holdings USA, Inc. v. United States Whether foreign tax payments should be treated as “expenses” and thereby factored into a court's pre-tax profitability calculation under the economic substance test.
• Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization Whether the Fifth Amendment's due process clause precludes federal courts from exercising personal jurisdiction in this suit by American victims of terrorist attacks abroad carried out by the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization.

More Petitions »

• Symposium on the court’s ruling in Matal v. Tam
• Symposium on October Term 2016’s racial-gerrymandering decisions
• A close look at Judge Neil Gorsuch’s jurisprudence
• Nominations of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court
• Profiling potential nominees to succeed Justice Scalia
• Symposium before the oral argument in Lee v. Tam
• The Court after Scalia
• Symposium before the oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley