On Tuesday the justices released their opinions in Sessions v. Dimaya, Wilson v. Sellers and United States v. Microsoft. They also heard oral argument in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. and Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling.

On Wednesday the justices heard oral argument in Lagos v. United States and Washington v. United States.

On Friday the justices will meet for their April 20 conference; our “petitions to watch” for that conference will available soon.

• Trump v. Hawaii
  (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
• South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
  Whether the Supreme Court should abrogate Quill Corp. v. North Dakota's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement.
• Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
  Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
• 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.

Array ( [0] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => american-humanist-association-v-birdville-independent-school-district [post_title] => American Humanist Association v. Birdville Independent School District [ID] => 259765 ) [1] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => antonick-v-electronic-arts-inc [post_title] => Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc. [ID] => 259764 ) [2] => 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 ) [3] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => bostic-v-dunbar [post_title] => Bostic v. Dunbar [ID] => 266357 ) [4] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => butts-v-sellers [post_title] => Butts v. Sellers [ID] => 263077 ) [5] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => caraffa-v-carnival-corp [post_title] => Caraffa v. Carnival Corp. [ID] => 254362 ) [6] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => christensen-v-tennessee [post_title] => Christensen v. Tennessee [ID] => 261859 ) [7] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => city-bloomfield-new-mexico-v-felix [post_title] => City of Bloomfield, New Mexico v. Felix [ID] => 259429 ) [8] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => coachella-valley-water-district-v-agua-caliente-band-cahuilla-indians [post_title] => Coachella Valley Water District v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians [ID] => 260171 ) [9] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => daleidan-v-national-abortion-federation [post_title] => Daleidan v. National Abortion Federation [ID] => 260192 ) [10] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => el-nahal-v-yassky [post_title] => El-Nahal v. Yassky [ID] => 250982 ) [11] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => elmore-v-holbrook [post_title] => Elmore v. Holbrook [ID] => 243232 ) [12] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => eve-usa-inc-v-mentor-graphics-corp [post_title] => EVE-USA, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. [ID] => 265064 ) [13] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => garcia-v-bloomberg [post_title] => Garcia v. Bloomberg [ID] => 253790 ) [14] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => georgiou-v-united-states [post_title] => Georgiou v. United States [ID] => 231013 ) [15] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => gordon-v-bank-of-america-n-a [post_title] => Gordon v. Bank of America, N.A. [ID] => 213021 ) [16] => 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 ) [17] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => lockwood-andrews-newman-p-c-v-mason [post_title] => Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C. v. Mason [ID] => 254365 ) [18] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => loudoun-county-virginia-v-dulles-duty-free-llc [post_title] => Loudoun County, Virginia v. Dulles Duty Free, LLC [ID] => 265463 ) [19] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => luis-v-united-states [post_title] => Luis v. United States [ID] => 221255 ) [20] => 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 ) [21] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => new-mexico-association-of-nonpublic-schools-v-moses [post_title] => New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses [ID] => 243046 ) [22] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => perez-guzman-v-sessions [post_title] => Perez-Guzman v. Sessions [ID] => 261671 ) [23] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => reyes-v-sessions [post_title] => Reyes v. Sessions [ID] => 259959 ) [24] => 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 ) [25] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => shakbazyan-v-united-states [post_title] => Shakbazyan v. United States [ID] => 251646 ) [26] => 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 ) [27] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => sykes-v-united-states [post_title] => Sykes v. United States [ID] => 262690 ) [28] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => tilton-v-securities-exchange-commission [post_title] => Tilton v. Securities and Exchange Commission [ID] => 251632 ) [29] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => trudeau-v-united-states [post_title] => Trudeau v. United States [ID] => 245338 ) [30] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => ultraflo-corp-v-pelican-tank-parts-inc [post_title] => Ultraflo Corp. v. Pelican Tank Parts, Inc. [ID] => 253793 ) [31] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => vanessa-g-v-tennessee-dept-of-childrens-services [post_title] => Vanessa G. v. Tennessee Dep’t of Children’s Services [ID] => 242382 ) [32] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => washington-alliance-technology-workers-v-department-homeland-security [post_title] => Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. Department of Homeland Security [ID] => 264149 ) [33] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => werner-v-wall [post_title] => Werner v. Wall [ID] => 251622 ) [34] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => wilchcombe-v-united-states [post_title] => Wilchcombe v. United States [ID] => 253872 ) )

Conference of April 20, 2018

• Bostic v. Dunbar Whether, when the Supreme Court held in Graham v. Florida that “[t]he Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide,” states can bypass that rule by sentencing a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide to a term-of-years sentence under which he will die in prison, because he will not be eligible for parole until he is 112 years old.
• EVE-USA, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (1) Whether, and under what circumstances, assignors and their privies are free to contest a patent's validity; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that proof of but-for causation, without more, satisfies the requirement that damages be apportioned between patented and un-patented features.

More Petitions »