Issue: (1) Whether petitioners’ First Amendment challenge seeking an exemption from California's campaign-finance disclosure requirements is moot regarding (a) expunging past records, or (b) preventing further release of those records where the “court can fashion some form of meaningful relief” by (a) “ordering the Government to destroy or return any and all copies it may have in its possession,” Church of Scientology of California v. United States, or (b) “preventing further [government] disclosure,” United States v. Sells Engineering; (2) whether, if moot, the exemption challenge is “within the . . . exception for cases capable of repetition, yet evading review,” Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life; (3) whether the exemption challenge is ripe regarding future disclosure; and (4) whether petitioners are entitled to an exemption from challenged disclosure provisions.
On Monday at 9:30 a.m., we expect additional orders from the January 19 conference. The justices will meet next for their February 17 conference. The calendar for the February sitting, which will begin on Tuesday, February 21, is available on the court's website.
Gloucester County School Board v. G.G. (1) Whether courts should extend deference to an unpublished agency letter that, among other things, does not carry the force of law and was adopted in the context of the very dispute in which deference is sought; and (2) whether, with or without deference to the agency, the Department of Education's specific interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, which provides that a funding recipient providing sex-separated facilities must “generally treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity,” should be given effect.
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Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed.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.