Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
16-772Chiropractors United for Research and Education, LLC v. BeshearWhether Kentucky's Anti-solicitation statute, an allegedly content-based and speaker-based restriction on commercial speech, is subject to strict scrutiny analysis under Reed v. Town of Gilbert and Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. (Opinion by )
16-759Rutgerson v. United States(1) Whether a defendant “induce[s]" the assent of another person, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 2422, where the defendant accepts the request of the other person, who has already assented to the course of conduct prior to and independent of any action by the defendant; and (2) whether the court of appeals correctly applied the harmless-error doctrine to the exclusion of evidence of a government investigation showing the petitioner's lack of interest in sex involving any underage person prior to contact with the government, where the petitioner's lack of predisposition was essential to his entrapment defense. (Opinion by )
16-498Patchak v. Jewell(1) Whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including this court's determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitutions separation of powers principles; and (2) whether a statute which does not amend any generally applicable substantive or procedural laws, but deprives the petitioner of the right to pursue his pending lawsuit, violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. (Opinion by )
16-771Capitol Records, LLC v. Vimeo, LLCWhether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred in holding, contrary to the considered view of the United States Copyright Office and in conflict with the New York state appellate courts, that when Congress enacted the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and added Section 512 to the Copyright Act, it implicitly limited and preempted the state-law rights and remedies that Section 301(c) says “shall not be annulled or limited.” (Opinion by )
16-755Menendez v. United StatesWhether a court may consider a legislator's motive for performing an act when deciding whether the act is protected by the speech or debate clause. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards