| 24-1145 |
Live Nation Entm't v. Heckman |
(1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act protects all arbitration
agreements or only a subset of traditional, bilateral
arbitration agreements that the act’s drafters
specifically envisioned; and (2) whether the FAA preempts California’s
severability doctrine because it specifically targets
and disproportionately invalidates arbitration
agreements. |
| 24-1113 |
New Jersey Transit Corporation v. Colt |
(1) Whether a state’s formal financial liability for a
judgment against a state-created entity carries more
weight in assessing whether that entity is an arm of
the state than other factors, including the state’s own
characterization of that entity; and (2) whether New Jersey Transit is an arm of the state of New
Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes. |
| 24-1107 |
Peoples v. Cook County, Illinois |
Whether the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution provides the sort of
explicit textual source of constitutional protection for
overdetention such that the Eighth Amendment, not
substantive due process, must be the exclusive guide for
analyzing claims of unconstitutional overdetention. |
| 24-1099 |
Smith v. Scott |
(1) Whether, viewing the facts from the officers’ perspective
at the time, the officers acted reasonably
under the Fourth Amendment by using
bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially
armed and actively resisting individual only
until handcuffing could be accomplished; and (2) whether the panel erred in denying qualified immunity
where no case clearly established that pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the
Fourth Amendment. |
| 24-1093 |
Mumford v. Iowa |
Whether a dog sniff of the interior of a lawfully
stopped vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution absent
consent to the sniff or probable cause to believe that the
vehicle contains illegal drugs. |
| 24-1092 |
Mungo Homes, LLC v. Huskins |
Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred
in applying a severability rule that disfavors arbitration
and by creating a state-specific public policy defense
to arbitration that conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act, such that
enforcement of arbitration agreements in the state now
turns on whether enforcement is sought in state or federal
court. |
| 24-1084 |
Hohn v. U.S. |
Whether a prosecutor’s intentional, unjustified intrusion into a defendant’s attorney-client communications violates the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution without a showing of discrete, trial-specific prejudice. |
| 24-1078 |
Beck v. U.S. |
(1) Whether Feres v. United
States’s bar against
a servicemember’s ability to bring tort claims
“incident to service” is only triggered when the injury
was directly caused by the servicemember’s military
duties or orders; and whether the court should limit or
overrule Feres because its limitation on
servicemembers has no basis in the Federal Tort Claims Act's text and
is unworkable. |
| 24-1073 |
Maxwell v. U.S. |
Whether, under Santobello v. New York and common principles of contract
interpretation, promise on behalf of the
“United States” or the “Government” that is made by a
U.S. Attorney in one district binds federal
prosecutors in other districts. |
| 24-1068 |
Monsanto Company v. Durnell |
Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim when the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concluded that
the warning is not required and the warning cannot
be added to a product without EPA approval. |
| 24-1063 |
Hunter v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to
appeal and the government does not object. |
| 24-1061 |
Project Veritas v. Vasquez |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred by holding that Oregon’s
prohibition of unannounced recordings—which expressly
exempts recordings of police activity and discussions
during certain felonies—is content-neutral and thus subject only to intermediate scrutiny; and (2) whether, even if Oregon’s law is content-neutral, it fails
intermediate scrutiny because it restricts unannounced
audio recording in wholly public settings where privacy
interests are minimal or nonexistent. |
| 24-1034 |
Sneed v. Raybon |
Whether the court of appeals erred in denying
petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability (COA) as to his
constitutional habeas claims, where (i) a
circuit judge found that the COA standard
had been met, and (ii) the court denied a
COA based on its ruling on the merits of
those claims. |
| 24-1025 |
Crowe v. State Bar of Oregon |
(1) Whether compelled membership in a bar
association that engages in nongermane activities is
necessarily unconstitutional; and (2) whether the court should reconsider Keller v. State Bar of California in light of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, and require the activities of a mandatory
bar association to satisfy at least exacting scrutiny. |
| 24-1021 |
Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation |
Whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is entitled to interstate sovereign immunity under the federal
Constitution. |
| 24-1020 |
Uber Technologies v. Draameh |
Whether, under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, a federal court must apply existing
state law or can instead predict changes in state law. |
| 24-1015 |
Does 1-2 v. Hochul |
(1) Whether compliance with state laws directly
contrary to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964’s requirement to provide a
reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs may
serve as an undue hardship justifying an employer’s
noncompliance with Title VII; and (2) whether a state law that requires employers to deny without any consideration all requests by
employees for a religious accommodation, contrary to
Title VII’s religious nondiscrimination provision, is
preempted by Title VII and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. |
| 24-1001 |
Cotter Corporation v. Mazzocchio |
Whether federal nuclear safety regulations preempt
state tort standards of care in public liability actions. |
| 24-994 |
National Basketball Association v. Salazar |
(1) Whether a consumer claiming that he was
harmed by disclosure of his personal information
must plead that his information was revealed to the
public to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, or instead the consumer need only plead that his information was disclosed to any third party without his
consent; and (2) whether the Video Privacy Protection Act bars a business from disclosing information about consumers who do not
subscribe to its audiovisual goods or services. |
| 24-993 |
Olivier v. City of Brandon, Mississippi |
(1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief. |
| 24-992 |
Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority v. Good |
(1) Whether a state treasury’s liability for an entity’s judgments is the most important factor in determining whether that entity is an arm of the state; and (2) whether incidents of corporate status, such as the capacity to sue and be sued, own property, and contract, are relevant to determining whether a public corporation established by a state for a state-wide public purpose and governed by a board comprising state officials and individuals appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature is an arm of the state. |
| 24-977 |
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v. Albrecht |
Whether, if a pharmaceutical manufacturer fully informs the Food & Drug Administration of all material information bearing on a drug’s potential risk and seeks approval to warn of that risk on the label, but the FDA formally denies the request without mandating any alternative warning, the manufacturer may nonetheless be held liable under state law for failure to warn of that risk. |
| 24-972 |
Bell v. U.S. |
(1) Whether a misrepresentation that does not concern the price or fundamental characteristics of property
can give rise to a violation of the federal mail-fraud and
wire-fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and (2) whether a defendant may be convicted for making
a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by answering a
question posed by a government agent in a way that is ambiguous as to its truth or falsity. |
| 24-969 |
Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau |
Whether, in order to obtain judicial relief, a party
challenging governmental action taken by an
individual who remained in office against the
president’s wishes due to an unconstitutional
removal restriction must show that a hypothetical
replacement officer would have taken a different
action. |
| 24-968 |
Moore v. U.S. |
Whether courts should analyze as-applied Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) by examining whether historical tradition supports permanently disarming someone for the predicate offense(s) underlying the defendant’s conviction. |
| 24-964 |
O’Bannon v. King |
(1) Whether private parties may seek judicial enforcement of the Readmission Acts, statutes that imposed restrictions on former Confederate states as conditions of regaining representation in Congress; and (2) whether plaintiffs may invoke Ex parte Young to bypass a state’s sovereign immunity when they lack a cause of action. |
| 24-959 |
Jordan v. Mississippi |
(1) Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court, in
conflict with this court’s decisions in Ake v. Oklahoma and
McWilliams v. Dunn (but consistent with that court’s prior
decisions refusing to enforce Ake according to its
terms), denied petitioner due process by refusing to
provide expert mental health assistance sufficiently
independent of the prosecution and available to the
defense to assist him in developing and presenting
his sentencing mitigation case, and in rebutting the
state’s case against him; and (2) whether the Mississippi Supreme Court, in
conflict with this court’s decision in Cruz v. Arizona and in disregard of the supremacy of federal law, departed from its longstanding
interpretation of the intervening-law exception to the
state’s bar on successive habeas petitions to deny
petitioner the benefit of this court’s clarification of
Ake in McWilliams. |
| 24-952 |
South Point Energy Center LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue |
(1) Whether 25 U.S.C. § 5108 expressly preempts
state and local taxation of permanent improvements on
trust land when the improvement’s owner is a non-Indian; and (2) whether federal law impliedly preempts state and
local taxation of petitioner’s permanent improvement. |
| 24-938 |
American Airlines Group Inc. v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, absent evidence of a marketwide price increase or output reduction, a reduction in competition between two members to a joint venture is sufficient to prove a substantial anticompetitive effect at step one of antitrust law's rule of reason; and (2) whether, to meet its burden at step two of the rule of reason, a defendant must disprove other potential causes for the asserted procompetitive benefits and prove that the asserted procompetitive benefits were not offset by out-of-market anticompetitive effects. |
| 24-935 |
Flower Foods v. Brock |
Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel
in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the
goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that
cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. |
| 24-905 |
Bronitsky v. Saldana |
Whether, under the Bankruptcy Code, debtors can voluntarily contribute to their own retirement accounts rather than pay back unsecured creditors — and if so, when (and in what amount) such contributions might be permissible. |
| 24-809 |
Goldey v. Fields |
(1) Whether an implied cause of action exists for Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims; and (2) whether the court should reconsider the premise that the judiciary may imply causes of action for damages under the federal Constitution that Congress did not enact. |
| 24-805 |
Maldonado-Magno v. Bondi |
Whether the U.S. courts of appeals should review de novo or for substantial evidence the agency's determination that a given set of facts do not show "persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of" a protected characteristic under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). |
| 24-796 |
Missouri v. U.S. |
(1) Whether federal courts can second-guess a state"s "reason" for exercising 10th Amendment authority; (2) whether the federal Constitution prohibits states from exercising 10th Amendment authority when motivated
by a concern that a federal statute is unconstitutional; and (3) whether a state official is a proper defendant under Ex parte Young simply because the official is regulated by
a statute, or instead the official also needs to possess authority to enforce the challenged law. |
| 24-783 |
Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel |
Whether district courts have the authority to
excuse the thirty-day procedural time limit for
removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). |
| 24-777 |
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi |
Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to
the Board of Immigration Appeals"s judgment that a given set of undisputed
facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe
enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C.
" 1101(a)(42). |
| 24-745 |
Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana |
Whether a parent’s fundamental right to direct the care and custody of his or her children includes a right to know and participate in decisions concerning their minor child’s medical care, including a minor’s decision to seek an abortion. |
| 24-621 |
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission |
Whether the limits on coordinated party
expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First
Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party
spending in connection with "party coordinated
communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. " 109.37. |
| 24-594 |
Seale v. U.S. |
Whether the certificate of appealability requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) bars a court of appeals from exercising jurisdiction over a person's appeal from a district court's refusal to conduct a full resentencing after one of their convictions was vacated on constitutional grounds. |
| 24-549 |
Grant v. Zorn |
(1) Whether the False Claims Act"s statutory civil penalty must be limited to a single-digit multiplier of the actual damages under the Eighth Amendment, in a non-intervened qui tam action; and (2) whether the Act's prohibition on presenting "false or fraudulent" claims to the government for payment provides two distinct manners of establishing liability, such that a finding of fraudulent claim submissions obviates a finding of falsity. |
| 24-532 |
Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. |
(1) Whether, for interpreting the intentions of treaty parties regarding a word like "person," extra-textual information such as historical context and contemporary domestic law is a material input in parallel with the textual analysis; and
(2) whether the New York Convention applies for arbitration agreements governing a dispute with a sovereign nation arising out of its role as a sovereign. |
| 24-350 |
Port of Tacoma v. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance |
Whether Section 505 of the Clean Water Act authorizes citizens to invoke the federal courts to enforce conditions of state-issued pollutant-discharge permits adopted under state law that mandate a greater scope of coverage than required by the act. CVSG: 5/27/2025 |
| 24-345 |
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. |
Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied
private right of action. CVSG: 5/22/2025 |
| 24-277 |
Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran |
Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act"s terrorism exception extends jurisdiction to claims
arising from a foreign state"s material support for a
terrorist attack that injures or disables, but does not
kill, its victims. CVSG: 5/27/2025 |
| 24-181 |
Sony Music Entm't v. Cox Communications |
Whether the profit requirement of vicarious copyright infringement permits liability when the defendant expects commercial gain from the enterprise in which infringement occurs, or instead permits liability only when the defendant expects commercial gain from the act of infringement itself. CVSG: 5/27/2025 |
| 24-171 |
Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because
it knew that people were using certain accounts to
infringe and did not terminate access, without proof
that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it; and (2) whether the 4th Circuit erred in holding that mere
knowledge of another"s direct infringement suffices
to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). CVSG: 5/27/2025 |
| 23-1360 |
Fiehler v. Mecklenburg |
Whether a court has the power to disregard evidence of the location of a water boundary from a federal survey based on subsequent evidence of the body of water's location. CVSG: 5/27/2025 |
| 23-1213 |
Mulready v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association |
(1) Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts state laws that regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) by preventing them from cutting off rural patients" access, steering patients to PBM-favored pharmacies, excluding pharmacies willing to accept their terms from preferred networks, and
overriding state discipline of pharmacists; and (2) whether Medicare Part D preempts state laws that limit the conditions PBMs may place on pharmacies" participation in their preferred networks. CVSG: 5/27/2025 |
| 23-1209 |
M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund |
Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's instruction to compute withdrawal liability "as of the end of the plan year" requires a multiemployer pension plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions to which its actuary subscribed at the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after the end of the year. CVSG: 5/27/2025 |
| 23-1197 |
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety |
Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. CVSG: 5/7/2025 |
