Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

There is a possibility of opinions on Tuesday at 10 a.m. We will begin live-blogging at this link at 9:45 a.m.
On Tuesday the court hears oral argument in Abbott v. Perez. Amy Howe has our preview.
On Tuesday the court also hears oral argument in Animal Science Products Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. Amy Howe again has our preview.

King v. United States

Petition for certiorari denied on June 11, 2012
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
11-959 9th Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2011

Issue: (1) Whether, when a false statement is made to an individual who has no connection whatsoever to the federal government, the false statement is nonetheless made in a “matter within the jurisdiction” of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, if the subject matter of the statement involves issues over which the federal government may exercise regulatory authority; and (2) whether the government exceeds its power under the Commerce Clause when it criminalizes underground injections of clean water into intrastate aquifers with no connection to underground sources of drinking water.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

Certiorari-stage documents

King v. United States

Pending petition
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
10-10489 5th Cir. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Issue: Whether a defendant’s maximum term of supervised release serves as a cumulative maximum on the length of imprisonment available following revocation of supervised release?

Briefs and Documents

Certiorari-stage documents

 
Share:
  • Featured Posts

  • Email Digest Sign-Up


  • Merits Case Pages and Archives

Term Snapshot
  • This Week at the Court

    The Supreme Court released orders from the April 20 conference on Monday. The justices added two cases to their docket for next term, United States v. Stitt and United States v. Sims, consolidated for one hour of argument. The justices also called for the views of the solicitor general in EVE-USA Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.

    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.

  • Major Cases

    • 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.
    see all this term’s cases »
  • Recent Decisions

    • Hall v. Hall When one of several cases consolidated under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a) is finally decided, that decision confers upon the losing party the immediate right to appeal, regardless of whether any of the other consolidated cases remain pending.
    • Wilson v. Sellers A federal habeas court reviewing an unexplained state-court decision on the merits should “look through” that decision to the last related state-court decision that provides a relevant rationale and presume that the unexplained decision adopted the same reasoning; the state may rebut the presumption by showing that the unexplained decision most likely relied on different grounds than the reasoned decision below.
    • Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro Because service advisors at car dealerships are “salesm[e]n . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles,” 29 U. S. C. §213(b)(10)(A), they are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime-pay requirement.
    • Sessions v. Dimaya 18 U. S. C. §16(b), which defines “violent felony” for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s removal provisions, is unconstitutionally vague.
    see all this Term’s cases »
  • Upcoming Petitions

      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 »

  • Recent Special Features

  • Statistical Snapshot

    Cases argued 60
    Cases decided 20
    Summary reversals 6
    Merits cases granted to date 63
    see all »
  • Live Blog Archives

  • Twitter Feed

  • Download our App in the Apple Store

  • First Mondays see all

  • Videos see all

    On April 4, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with Justice Albie Sachs, formerly of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, for the launch of the Guarini Institute for Global Legal Studies at NYU School of Law.

Awards
  • Peabody Award

    Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.

    Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.

  • Sigma Delta Chi

    Sigma Delta Chi

    Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.

  • National Press Club Award

    National Press Club Award

    Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.

  • Silver Gavel Award

    Silver Gavel Award

    Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.

  • American Gavel Award

    American Gavel Award

    Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.

  • Webby Award

    Webby Award

    Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.