Issue: (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit correctly held that the “viability”
line from Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey remains the only critical factor
in determining constitutionality, to the exclusion
of other significant governmental interests,
or whether Arizona’s post-twenty-week limitation is facially
valid because it does not pose a substantial obstacle
to a safe abortion; (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in declining to recognize
that the State’s interests in preventing documented
fetal pain, protecting against a significantly
increased health risk to the mother, and upholding the integrity of the medical profession
are sufficient to support limitations on abortion
after twenty weeks gestational age when terminating
the pregnancy is not necessary to avert
death or serious health risk to the mother; and (3) whether, if the Ninth Circuit correctly held that its decision
is compelled by this Court’s precedent in Roe v. Wade and its progeny, those precedents should
be revisited in light of the recent, compelling evidence
of fetal pain and significantly increased
health risk to the mother for abortions performed
after twenty weeks gestational age.
On Monday, the justices met for their September 26 conference. The October sitting will begin on October 3; the argument calendar for that sitting is available on the court's website.
Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami (1) Whether, by limiting suit to “aggrieved person[s],” Congress required that a Fair Housing Act plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact; and (2) whether proximate cause requires more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies.
Moore v. Texas (1) Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed.
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
BeavEx Inc. v. Costello Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts generally-applicable state laws that force motor carriers to treat and pay all drivers as “employees” rather than as independent contractors.
Nelson v. Colorado Whether Colorado’s requirement that defendants must prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence to get their money back, after reversal of conviction of a crime entailing various monetary penalties, is consistent with due process.