On Monday, the Supreme Court released orders from the October 13 conference. The court added four new cases to its merits docket: United States v. Microsoft Corp., Ohio v. American Express Co., Currier v. Virginia and Dahda v. United States. The justices will meet next for their October 27 conference. The calendar for the November sitting, which begins on October 30, is available on the Supreme Court's website.

• Trump v. Hawaii
  (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 »

Array ( [0] => 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 ) [1] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => caraffa-v-carnival-corp [post_title] => Caraffa v. Carnival Corp. [ID] => 254362 ) [2] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => city-bloomfield-new-mexico-v-felix [post_title] => City of Bloomfield, New Mexico v. Felix [ID] => 259429 ) [3] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => el-nahal-v-yassky [post_title] => El-Nahal v. Yassky [ID] => 250982 ) [4] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => elmore-v-holbrook [post_title] => Elmore v. Holbrook [ID] => 243232 ) [5] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => garcia-v-bloomberg [post_title] => Garcia v. Bloomberg [ID] => 253790 ) [6] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => georgiou-v-united-states [post_title] => Georgiou v. United States [ID] => 231013 ) [7] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => gordon-v-bank-of-america-n-a [post_title] => Gordon v. Bank of America, N.A. [ID] => 213021 ) [8] => 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 ) [9] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => lockwood-andrews-newman-p-c-v-mason [post_title] => Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C. v. Mason [ID] => 254365 ) [10] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => luis-v-united-states [post_title] => Luis v. United States [ID] => 221255 ) [11] => 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 ) [12] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => new-mexico-association-of-nonpublic-schools-v-moses [post_title] => New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses [ID] => 243046 ) [13] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => opalinski-v-robert-half-international-inc-2 [post_title] => Opalinski v. Robert Half International, Inc. [ID] => 258416 ) [14] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => s-s-v-colorado-river-indian-tribes [post_title] => S.S. v. Colorado River Indian Tribes [ID] => 259449 ) [15] => 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 ) [16] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => scott-v-maryland-state-department-labor [post_title] => Scott v. Maryland State Department of Labor [ID] => 258807 ) [17] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => shakbazyan-v-united-states [post_title] => Shakbazyan v. United States [ID] => 251646 ) [18] => 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 ) [19] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => tilton-v-securities-exchange-commission [post_title] => Tilton v. Securities and Exchange Commission [ID] => 251632 ) )

Conference of October 27, 2017

• Opalinski v. Robert Half International, Inc. Whether, where an arbitration agreement does not expressly refer to class arbitration, the determination of whether class arbitration is permitted by the agreement is a question of arbitrability for the court to decide or a question of interpretation and procedure for the arbitrator to decide.
• S.S. v. Colorado River Indian Tribes (1) Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1912(d) and 1912(f), applies in a private severance action initiated by one birth parent against the other birth parent of an Indian child; and (2) whether, if the sections apply in such an action, this de jure discrimination and separate-and-substandard treatment of Indian children violate the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Scott v. Maryland State Department of Labor Whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a district court has discretion to extend the time for service of process even without a showing of good cause, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2d, 3d, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits have held, and as the Supreme Court has interpreted, or whether the district court lacks such discretion, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has squarely held and as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has repeatedly suggested.

More Petitions »

• Summer symposium on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
• Summer symposium on Christie v. NCAA
• Summer symposium on Gill v. Whitford
• Summer symposium on Carpenter v. United States
• Summer symposium on Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC
• Summer symposium on Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project and Trump v. Hawaii
• Symposium on October Term 2016’s death-penalty decisions
• Symposium on the court’s ruling in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
• Symposium on the court’s ruling in Matal v. Tam
• Symposium on October Term 2016’s racial-gerrymandering decisions

• Live blog of orders | June 27, 2017
• Live blog of orders and opinions | June 26, 2017
• Live blog of opinions | June 23, 2017
• Live blog of opinions | June 22, 2017
• Live blog of orders and opinions | June 19, 2017

See all