There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m.

On Monday the justices heard oral argument in Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Pereira v. Sessions and Chavez-Meza v. United States.

On Tuesday the justices will hear oral argument in Abbott v. Perez and Animal Science Products Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.

On Wednesday the justices will hear oral argument in Trump v. Hawaii.

On Friday the justices will meet for their April 27 conference; our "petitions to watch" for that conference will be 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] => butts-v-sellers [post_title] => Butts v. Sellers [ID] => 263077 ) [4] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => caraffa-v-carnival-corp [post_title] => Caraffa v. Carnival Corp. [ID] => 254362 ) [5] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => christensen-v-tennessee [post_title] => Christensen v. Tennessee [ID] => 261859 ) [6] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => city-bloomfield-new-mexico-v-felix [post_title] => City of Bloomfield, New Mexico v. Felix [ID] => 259429 ) [7] => 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 ) [8] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => daleidan-v-national-abortion-federation [post_title] => Daleidan v. National Abortion Federation [ID] => 260192 ) [9] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => el-nahal-v-yassky [post_title] => El-Nahal v. Yassky [ID] => 250982 ) [10] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => elmore-v-holbrook [post_title] => Elmore v. Holbrook [ID] => 243232 ) [11] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => garcia-v-bloomberg [post_title] => Garcia v. Bloomberg [ID] => 253790 ) [12] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => georgiou-v-united-states [post_title] => Georgiou v. United States [ID] => 231013 ) [13] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => gordon-v-bank-of-america-n-a [post_title] => Gordon v. Bank of America, N.A. [ID] => 213021 ) [14] => 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 ) [15] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => lockwood-andrews-newman-p-c-v-mason [post_title] => Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C. v. Mason [ID] => 254365 ) [16] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => loudoun-county-virginia-v-dulles-duty-free-llc [post_title] => Loudoun County, Virginia v. Dulles Duty Free, LLC [ID] => 265463 ) [17] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => luis-v-united-states [post_title] => Luis v. United States [ID] => 221255 ) [18] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => maricopa-county-arizona-v-villa [post_title] => Maricopa County, Arizona v. Villa [ID] => 265682 ) [19] => 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 ) [20] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => new-mexico-association-of-nonpublic-schools-v-moses [post_title] => New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses [ID] => 243046 ) [21] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => perez-guzman-v-sessions [post_title] => Perez-Guzman v. Sessions [ID] => 261671 ) [22] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => quarles-v-united-states [post_title] => Quarles v. United States [ID] => 264956 ) [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] => trent-v-united-states [post_title] => Trent v. United States [ID] => 265253 ) [30] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => trudeau-v-united-states [post_title] => Trudeau v. United States [ID] => 245338 ) [31] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => ultraflo-corp-v-pelican-tank-parts-inc [post_title] => Ultraflo Corp. v. Pelican Tank Parts, Inc. [ID] => 253793 ) [32] => 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 ) [33] => 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 ) [34] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => werner-v-wall [post_title] => Werner v. Wall [ID] => 251622 ) [35] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => wilchcombe-v-united-states [post_title] => Wilchcombe v. United States [ID] => 253872 ) )

Conference of April 27, 2018

• Maricopa County, Arizona v. Villa Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which states that “the principal prosecuting attorney” of a state or locality may apply for an order authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2), allows a principal prosecuting attorney to delegate the task of applying for such an order to a subordinate.
• Quarles v. United States Whether Taylor v. United States’ definition of generic burglary requires proof that intent to commit a crime was present at the time of unlawful entry or first unlawful remaining, as two circuits hold; or whether it is enough that the defendant formed the intent to commit a crime at any time while “remaining in” the building or structure, as the court below and three other circuits hold.
• Trent v. United States Whether the exclusion of testimony on the specific length of the mandatory minimum sentence faced by a cooperating witness violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination.

More Petitions »