(1) Whether King County created a public forum by accepting for display on its property a wide array of controversial political and public-issue ads, including ads that address the same subject matter as petitioners’ anti-terrorism ad, and thus violated the First Amendment by rejecting Petitioners’ ad based on its message; (2) regardless of the nature of the forum, whether King County’s rejection of petitioners’ advertisement based on a claim that this public-issue ad was false or misleading violates the First Amendment; and (3) whether petitioners must demonstrate that there are no alternative ways to express their public-issue message in order for the court to find irreparable harm based on King County’s rejection of their ad.
(1) Whether the communication, discussion, and information provided by licensed mental health counselors or doctors during counseling or other professional services with their clients or patients constitutes speech protected by the First Amendment; (2) whether a law permitting licensed mental health professionals and doctors to provide counseling concerning the subject of same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity but only if such counseling does not include the content and viewpoint that a minor may reduce or eliminate his unwanted same-sex attractions, behaviors, or identity is a content-based restriction of speech subject to strict scrutiny under the firm rule handed down by this Court last term in Reed v. Town of Gilbert; and (3) whether a law that prohibits parents and minors from seeking and receiving licensed professional counseling consistent with their sincerely held religious convictions violates the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of the children.
Whether the affirmance by the Supreme Court of the State of Florida of defendant’s conviction for first-degree murder and sentence of death was clearly erroneous and violative of the Constitution of the United States.
Whether Florida’s death penalty statute, which requires a judge rather than a jury to make findings of fact before the death penalty may be imposed, violated petitioner’s Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights as set forth in Ring v. Arizona and Apprendi v. New Jersey.
Whether a predicate prior conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act must qualify as such under the elements of the offense simpliciter, without extending the modified categorical approach to separate statutory definitional provisions that merely establish the means by which referenced elements may be satisfied rather than stating alternative elements or versions of the offense.
The Court is now in recess. The next sitting will begin on February 22. The calendar for that sitting is available here.
United States v. Texas Whether the Obama administration has the authority to issue its new deferred-action policy for undocumented immigrants, whether the states have standing to challenge the policy at all, whether DHS was required to notify the public about the proposed policy and provide opportunity for the public to weigh in on it, and whether the policy violates the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause,” which requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Zubik v. Burwell Does the availability of a regulatory method for nonprofit religious employers to comply with the HHS contraceptive mandate eliminate the substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of RFRA that the Court recognized in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.?
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest.
Evenwel v. Abbott Does the "one-person, one-vote" principle require states to use voter population, as opposed to total population, when drawing state legislative districts?
Apple, Inc. v. United States Whether vertical conduct by a disruptive market entrant, aimed at securing suppliers for a new retail platform, should be condemned as per se illegal under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, rather than analyzed under the rule of reason, because such vertical activity also had the alleged effect of facilitating horizontal collusion among the suppliers.
American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA Whether the Third Circuit erred by deferring to EPA’s interpretation of the words “total maximum daily load” to permit EPA to impose a complex regulatory scheme that does much more than cap daily levels of total pollutant loading and that displaces powers reserved to the states.
Frew v. Traylor (1) Whether, in interpreting the provisions of a consent decree, and in deciding whether those provisions should be dissolved, a court should consider the purpose for which the provisions were adopted; and (2) whether, in interpreting the provisions of a consent decree, and in deciding whether those provisions should be dissolved, a court should give weight to the interpretation of the provisions by the judge who originally approved them.
Isom v. Indiana Whether the determination that aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances must be made by a unanimous jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.