Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
17-127Kolbe v. Hogan(1) Whether District of Columbia v. Heller excludes the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines from Second Amendment protection; and (2) whether they may be banned even though they are typically possessed for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. (Opinion by )
February08-146Arthur Andersen LLP, et al. v. Carlisle, et al.Whether, under the Federal Arbitration Act, federal circuits courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals of denials of motions to compel arbitration raised by parties that did not sign the underlying arbitration agreement.03/03/2009Reversed and remanded (Opinion by JA)
17-99Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC(1) Whether the “substantial[ity]” and “federal-state balance” requirements of Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing are satisfied whenever a federal law standard is referenced to inform the standard of care in a state-law cause of action, so long as the parties dispute whether federal law embodies the asserted standard; and (2) whether a federal court applying Grable to a case removed from state court must accept a colorable, purely state-law claim as sufficient to establish that the case does not “necessarily raise” a federal issue, even if the court believes the state court would ultimately reject the purely state-law basis for the claim on its merits. (Opinion by )
17-97United States v. JenkinsWhether the definition of the term “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. (Opinion by )
17-94Stagg P.C. v. Department of State(1) Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to address whether Stagg was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claims when evaluating Stagg's request for a preliminary injunction; and (2) whether the lower courts err in denying a preliminary injunction solely because they deferred to the government's assertion that the licensing scheme was necessary for national security, regardless of its unconstitutionality. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards