Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

The new SCOTUSblog iOS app is now available in the App Store for free download.

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

  • Merits Case Pages and Archives

Term Snapshot
  • This Week at the Court

    The court is now on its summer recess. The justices will meet next for their September 25 conference.

  • Major Cases

    • Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project
      (1) Whether respondents’ challenge to the temporary suspension of entry of aliens abroad under Section 2(c) of Executive Order No. 13,780 is justiciable; (2) whether Section 2(c)’s temporary suspension of entry violates the Establishment Clause; (3) whether the global injunction, which rests on alleged injury to a single individual plaintiff, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the challenges to Section 2(c) became moot on June 14, 2017.
    • 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 »

  • Upcoming Petitions

      Conference of September 25, 2017
    • Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
    • Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.
    • National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.

    More Petitions »

  • Recent Special Features

  • Statistical Snapshot

    Cases argued 64
    Cases decided 62
    Summary reversals 7
    Merits Cases Set for Argument 64
    see all »
  • Live Blog Archives

  • Twitter Feed

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.

  • Email Digest Sign-Up