The Court is now in its summer recess. Its next Conference is scheduled for Monday, September 26.

• Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami
  (1) Whether, by limiting suit to “aggrieved person[s],” Congress required that a Fair Housing Act plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact; and (2) whether proximate cause requires more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies.
• Moore v. Texas
  (1) Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed.
• Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
  Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
• Murr v. Wisconsin
  Whether, in a regulatory taking case, the “parcel as a whole” concept as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, establishes a rule that two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels must be combined for takings analysis purposes.
• Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley
  Whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses when the state has no valid Establishment Clause concern.

Conference of September 26, 2016

• BeavEx Inc. v. Costello Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts generally-applicable state laws that force motor carriers to treat and pay all drivers as “employees” rather than as independent contractors.
• Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund Whether state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over covered class actions that allege only Securities Act of 1933 claims.
• Nelson v. Colorado Whether Colorado’s requirement that defendants must prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence to get their money back, after reversal of conviction of a crime entailing various monetary penalties, is consistent with due process.

More Petitions »

• Symposium before the oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley
• Symposium on the Court's ruling in McDonnell v. United States
• Symposium on the Court's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
• Symposium on the Court's ruling in United States v. Texas
• Symposium on the Court's ruling in Fisher II
• Symposium on the Court's ruling in Zubik v Burwell
• The potential nominees to succeed Justice Scalia
• Tributes to Justice Antonin Scalia
• Justice Scalia passes away