Skip to content

Petitions

A petition for certiorari, or cert petition, is a legal brief filed in the Supreme Court asking the justices to review (and ultimately overturn) a lower court ruling. In a typical term, the justices receive over 8,000 cert petitions and grant between 50 and 70 of these. The justices usually decide whether to grant or reject a petition at approximately two dozen private conferences, which generally take place on either Thursday or Friday, depending on the time of year; they then usually release a list of orders from that conference, including an announcement of which petitions for review have been granted or denied, the following Monday. All of the cases which have so far been granted for the October 2025 term can be found here. 

Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference (17)

This category consists of petitions that the justices have considered at at least one conference and decided to consider again at their next conference. We provide these cases first because, for more than a decade, the court has had a general practice of agreeing to hear a case only after it has "relisted" the case at least once. In other words, these petitions may have the strongest chance of being granted.

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
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.

Times Relisted: 13
24-1268 Reed v. Goertz Whether Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as authoritatively construed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, violates due process by arbitrarily denying prisoners access to postconviction DNA testing, rendering illusory prisoners’ state-created right to prove their innocence through newly discovered evidence.

Times Relisted: 7
25-29 Villarreal v. Alaniz (1) Whether it obviously violates the First Amendment to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer; and (2) whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment, or whether qualified immunity shields those officials.

Times Relisted: 4
25-49 Sittenfeld v. U.S. Whether, when the government alleges bribery based solely on lawful campaign contributions, the defendant may be convicted based on evidence that is ambiguous as to whether the public official conditioned any official act on the campaign contributions.

Times Relisted: 6
25-77 Foote v. Ludlow School Committee Whether a public school violates parents’ constitutional rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, the school encourages a student to transition to a new “gender” or participates in that process.

Times Relisted: 8
25-153 Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington Whether ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds are “Arms” presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Times Relisted: 7
25-198 Duncan v. Bonta (1) Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause.

Times Relisted: 7
25-227 Poore v. U.S. Whether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor v. Wilkie and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo constrain the deference courts may accord the Sentencing Commission's interpretation of its own rules via commentary.

Times Relisted: 5
25-238 Viramontes v. Cook County Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

Times Relisted: 7
25-248 District of Columbia v. R.W. (1) Whether a court assessing the existence of reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment may exclude a fact known to the officer, or instead must assess all the evidence when weighing the totality of the circumstances; and (2) whether, under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the officer in this case had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.

Times Relisted: 5
25-297 Zorn v. Linton Whether the Second Circuit’s qualified immunity analysis conflicts with this court’s repeated instruction that courts must define rights with specificity and look for close factual analogues in determining whether a Fourth Amendment right is clearly established.

Times Relisted: 7
25-382 Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission Whether Oklahoma may tax the income of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizen who lives and works within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation that McGirt v. Oklahoma held remains Indian country.

Times Relisted: 5
25-421 National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.

Times Relisted: 2
25-430 Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga Whether dismissal of a claim after assertion of the state-secrets privilege requires a district court to adjudicate the merits of the claim using the privileged information where the privileged information is relevant to a defense.

Times Relisted: 5
25-566 Grant v. Higgins Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the AR-15.

Times Relisted: 2
25-579 Department of the Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan (1) Whether the federal government’s submission to a state or territorial regulator of an application to renew a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) permit is “final agency action” that is immediately reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (2) whether the federal government must comply with the general environmental-review procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, before submitting a permit-renewal application under RCRA, which sets forth its own specific procedures to review environmental impacts in the context of hazardous-waste treatment.

Times Relisted: 2
25-5343 Beaird v. U.S. (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment; (2) whether Stinson v. United States still accurately states the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines; and (3) whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially unconstitutional.

Times Relisted: 1

Petitions We're Watching for the Next Conference (7)

This category consists of petitions that the justices will consider at the next conference that we believe have a decent chance of being granted (usually after being relisted at least once). The factors that we consider in deciding whether to include a petition on this list include the importance and potential impact of the question presented by the petition, whether the courts of appeals appear to be divided on that question, whether the case appears to be a good candidate for the court's review (there are not procedural issues or irregularities), and whether there are "friend of the court" briefs filed in support of the petition.

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
25-634 Family Federation for World Peace and Unification Int'l v. Moon Whether, where necessary to resolve a church-property dispute, the First Amendment prohibits courts from examining church-related facts to determine who leads the church.
25-625 Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund (1) Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any compensable injury in fact; and (2) whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when a class relies on representative evidence to try to prove an individualized reliance issue that is a necessary element of each plaintiff’s claim.
25-580 Whitton v. Dixon (1) Whether in determining if a constitutional error had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of a trial a court must consider only that evidence that was presented to the jury at the trial; and (2) whether the prejudice from the Giglio v. United States violation in this case met the standards for relief under Giglio and Brecht v. Abrahamson.
25-453 Bannon v. U.S. (1) Whether “willfully” in 2 U.S.C. § 192 – which states that anyone who is “summoned … by the authority of either House of Congress” and “willfully makes default” on the subpoena has committed a crime – requires the government to prove the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful; and (2) whether the proper composition of a congressional committee bears on its “authority” to issue a subpoena for purposes of 2 U.S.C. § 192.
25-308 Lynk Labs v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Whether patent applications that became publicly accessible only after the challenged patent’s critical date are “prior art ... printed publications” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 311(b).
25-290 Odeku v. Texas Whether a complainant’s statements to a sexual assault nurse examiner are testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
25-179 Reinink v. Hart (1) Whether, in the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness-of-a-seizure context, a law enforcement officer’s intended level of force is relevant to determining whether an officer’s use of force should be analyzed under a deadly-use-of-force standard or a general use-of-force standard; and (2) whether, in analyzing an excessive force claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an officer’s mistaken use of force being higher than what he or she intended entitles the officer to qualified immunity, so long as the mistake is reasonable under the circumstances.

Featured Petitions (43)

This category consists of petitions which have not (yet) been scheduled to be heard at a particular conference, but which we believe (for the same reasons as the list of "Petitions We're Watching for the Next Conference") have a decent chance of eventually being granted. Please note that we review petitions in the order in which they've been filed. The fact that a petition is not listed does not necessarily mean we will not list it in the future.

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
25-958 Sheetz v. El Dorado, California Whether (1) the Takings Clause’s protection against unconstitutional permit conditions encompass an evidentiary requirement (as opposed to a legislative process) by which the government bears the burden to demonstrate that its development permit exaction complies with Dolan v. City of Tigard's “rough proportionality” standard; and (2) an impact fee can be roughly proportional when imposed on one discrete class of development (residential) for the purpose of addressing impacts caused by another discrete class of development (commercial).
25-909 Meta Platforms v. Vermont Whether a plaintiff may establish specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant based on its forum-agnostic “business model,” or whether the plaintiff must allege that the defendant undertook specific, claim-related activities in or directed at the forum.
25-904 La Union del Pueblo Entero v. Paxton Whether Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10508, preempts a state law that prohibits eligible voters from compensating their chosen assisters or from choosing trusted assisters who are compensated.
25-890 Arkansas United v. Thurston (1) Whether private plaintiffs may maintain a suit in equity for declaratory and injunctive relief against state actors to prevent the continued enforcement of a state law preempted by Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10508; and (2) whether Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act is enforceable by private plaintiffs.
25-853 United Services Automobile Association v.PNC Bank N.A. (1) Whether the Federal Circuit has wrongly extended the prohibition on patenting an “abstract idea” – such as mathematical formulae, fundamental economic practices, or methods of organizing human activity – to also prohibit patenting concrete technological processes; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit has wrongly held that, as a matter of law, a computer-implemented technological invention is patent-eligible only if it claims improvements to computer functionality itself.
25-851 Grayson v. U.S. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2515's exclusionary rule, which provides that “no part of the contents” of an intercepted communication “and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing, or proceeding” before any state or federal court or governmental body “if the disclosure of that information" would violate Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, contains an unwritten clean-hands exception.
25-819 Hedgepeth v. Britton Whether and in what circumstances public employers may discipline employees based on their expression of controversial views while off the job.
25-808 McNair v. Johnson Whether federal courts have the power to issue sanctions under their inherent authority without first finding “bad faith,” and, if they do, whether they have the power to issue sanctions under their inherent authority even for “unintentional or merely negligent conduct.”
25-776 Youth 71Five Ministries v. Williams (1) Whether a religious organization can raise the First Amendment right to religious autonomy as an affirmative claim challenging legislative or executive action under 42 U.S.C. 1983, like other constitutional rights, or whether the doctrine may only be asserted as an affirmative defense after a suit has been filed; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment by conditioning access to a public grant program on a religious organization waiving its right to employ coreligionists, including for ministerial positions.
25-775 Westforth Sports v. City of Chicago Whether the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a state to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non-resident retail seller of legal, non-defective, easily transportable products based on the seller’s foreseeability that some such products may – through the agency of third parties – be transported into the forum state without any direction from the seller.
25-774 Johnson v. U.S. Whether police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they use a drug detection canine to sniff the door of an apartment home in a multi-unit building to determine whether there is contraband inside.
25-767 Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges (1) Whether the decision below — in which the court of appeals held, without notice to or briefing by the parties, that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 does not preclude suit in district court when “a factual record” shows that the CSRA is not “function[ing] as intended” — should be summarily reversed for violating the party-presentation principle; and (2) whether the decision below should be summarily reversed for failing to adhere to this court’s precedents holding that the CSRA generally precludes challenges to federal personnel actions in district court.
25-759 Lavigne v. Great Salt Bay Community School Board (1) Whether a court can rely on a probable alternative explanation at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage to dismiss a claim, or whether a complaint can only be dismissed if the plaintiff’s explanation is itself implausible; and (2) whether a parent’s fundamental constitutional rights include the right to be notified when public schools affirmatively recognize and facilitate a child’s gender-transition.
25-758 Moreland Properties LLC v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Whether a private party, whose contaminated land clean up is reviewed and approved by a state, likewise enjoys a presumption of substantial compliance with the National Contingency Plan.
25-757 Borges v. U.S. Whether, when alleged bribery rests solely on lawful campaign contributions, the government must prove an explicit, unambiguous quid pro quo conditioning an official act, or a conviction may rest on such ambiguity.
25-756 Householder v. U.S. Whether the requirement of a “quid pro quo” under McCormick v. United States is satisfied when a political candidate accepts a political contribution knowing that the donor believes the candidate will take official action because of the contribution.
25-742 Zhong v. U.S. (1) Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has statutory authority to hold that a conviction is factually insufficient under 10 U.S.C. § 867(c)(1)(C); and (2) whether military courts of criminal appeals have authority under 10 U.S.C. §§ 860c and 866(d)(2) to correct an unconstitutional firearms ban annotated after entry of judgment.
25-739 Hirsch v. U.S. Tax Court (1) Whether the court of appeals must issue a writ of mandamus when a petitioner is erroneously denied a jury trial, without considering whether the right is clear or unambiguous or the petitioner has other potential avenues of relief; and (2) whether the Internal Revenue Code violates the Seventh Amendment and Article III by authorizing the IRS to order the payment of monetary penalties for fraud without providing the taxpayer a jury trial.
25-729 King v. U.S. Whether a litigant can claim relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) when a change in settled procedural law retroactively vitiates the litigant’s reasonable reliance on the law.
25-668 Andrews v. U.S. Whether the Second Circuit was correct to uphold Clean Water Act authority over wetlands that are not “as a practical matter indistinguishable” from covered waters.
25-666 Castro v. Guevara Whether a trial court’s determination that a child is “well settled” with regard to the Hague Convention is subject to de novo review, or whether it is reviewed for clear error.
25-661 Blecher v. The Holy See Whether a foreign state’s mandatory policy or regulation that foreseeably enables and supports the sexual abuse of children may be susceptible to policy analysis or grounded in policy considerations such that it falls within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's discretionary function exclusion.
25-660 Klum v. City of Davenport, Iowa Whether the Second and Fourth Amendments forbid police from using deadly force against a suspect exclusively for holding a gun to his own head.
25-627 Macy’s Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1) Whether an employer’s practice that has no noted effect on employees’ collective-bargaining rights and is not motivated by anti-union animus is inherently destructive of union rights and violates the National Labor Relations Act; and (2) whether the National Labor Relations Board has the statutory or constitutional authority to order employers to pay “any … direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” their employees incur “as a result of” an unlawful labor practice.
25-604 Craig v. Krueger (1) Whether the 10th Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity to petitioners on the issue of excessive force without conducting an individualized qualified immunity analysis, but engaged, at least in part, in a “collective” qualified immunity analysis which considered the aggregate actions of multiple officers at the scene; and (2) whether, in denying qualified immunity, the 10th Circuit evaluated whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at an impermissibly high level of generality, contrary to Kisela v. Hughes, City & County of San Francisco v. Sheehan, and Ashcroft v. al-Kidd.
25-594 Crockett v. Krueger (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity to the Petitioner law enforcement officers on the issue of excessive force without conducting an individualized qualified immunity analysis, instead engaging in a collective qualified immunity analysis which considered the aggregate actions of multiple officers at the scene; (2) whether, in denying qualified immunity the 10th Circuit evaluated whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at an impermissibly high level of generality; and (3) whether the existing law would make it clear to a reasonable law enforcement officer when a suspect is “effectively subdued” such that using further force against them would be objectively unreasonable.
25-588 Summers v. Montana Whether a driver who is lawfully stopped for a traffic infraction remains seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when the officer concludes the purpose of the traffic stop, but prolongs the stop by immediately questioning the driver on unrelated matters.
25-582 Whitmer v. Enbridge Energy, LP Whether a state is the real party in interest, and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity, where a private plaintiff sues state officials in federal court for relief that would diminish, but not necessarily extinguish, the state’s ownership and control of its sovereign lands.
25-581 St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy (1) Whether proving a lack of general applicability under Employment Division v. Smith requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct; (2) whether Carson v. Makin displaces the rule of Employment Division v. Smith only when the government explicitly excludes religious people and institutions; and (3) whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled.
25-576 Buyer v. U.S. Whether a stock trading on an exchange whose physical headquarters is located in Manhattan suffices to establish venue in the Southern District of New York for insider-trading charges related to that stock.
25-573 Trump v. Carroll (1) Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 415 overrides Rule 403’s requirement to balance the probative value of temporally remote propensity evidence against its prejudicial effect before such evidence can be admitted?; (2) Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 413(d) authorizes the admission of temporally remote propensity evidence that the defendant committed the “crime” of “sexual assault” when the alleged prior act did not constitute a crime or a sexual assault?; and (3) Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) permits the admission of “modus operandi” or “corroboration” evidence of prior “bad acts” without establishing a non-propensity purpose of the evidence, such as identity, absence of mistake, or another enumerated exception in Rule 404(b)(2)?
25-541 Schoenthal v. Raoul Whether Illinois’ flat ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
25-521 Google LLC v. Epic Games (1) Whether under the Rule of Reason, a three-step, burden-shifting framework, an antitrust plaintiff is required to prove that less restrictive alternatives could accomplish the procompetitive benefits of the challenged conduct or whether there is no such requirement; (2) whether a court may impose a duty on an antitrust defendant to deal directly with its competitors without first determining that such court-mandated dealings will remedy the consequences of conduct found to violate the antitrust laws; and (3) whether the court must assess a private plaintiff’s Article III standing with respect to each proposed remedy before awarding injunctive relief.
25-465 Barton v. Securities and Exchange Commission Whether 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5) and its authorization for the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek “equitable relief” allow the SEC and a district court to use that general equitable authority to order a receivership — seizing every company owned by a defendant that benefitted to the slightest degree from the proceeds of his allegedly illegal acts — and thereby deprive the defendant of the resources to defend himself in a parallel criminal trial.
25-417 Nielsen v. Watanabe Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred here in recognizing a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics cause of action.
25-412 Williamson v. U.S. (1) Whether a “search” occurs when the government takes a purposeful, investigative act directed toward an individual’s home and curtilage, regardless of whether the individual has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area; and (2) whether, even under Katz v. United States, long-term, continuous, and surreptitious surveillance of an individual’s home and curtilage constitutes a “search.”
25-362 Griffiths v. Keith (1) Whether a police officer must wait until an armed, fleeing suspect turns and points his gun at the officer before using deadly force where, as here, the suspect refuses to comply with an officer’s commands to drop his weapon, proceeds to flee with the gun in his hand, and could turn and fire upon the officer; and (2) whether the court of appeals violated existing Supreme Court precedent by merely citing the general rule in defining a clearly established right, and by failing to identify any case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.
25-361 Asante v. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services Whether a state’s Medicaid program violates 42 C.F.R. § 431.52(b)’s equal-payment requirement by denying supplemental payments to out-of-state hospitals, thereby paying in-state hospitals more than out-of-state hospitals that furnish the same services to the state’s Medicaid patients.
25-348 AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Kennedy Whether the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 implicates an interest of pharmaceutical manufacturers that is protected by the Due Process Clause.
25-259 Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County Whether, when a plaintiff alleges that the application of a state policy infringed a fundamental right “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’” a court can deny relief because the infringement did not “shock the conscience."
25-1 Skinner v. Louisiana Whether Louisiana courts erred in refusing to apply Wearry v. Cain to an individual's Brady v. Maryland claims.
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.
23-6912 Fields v. Plappert Whether the requirement that a verdict be based only on the evidence presented in the courtroom at trial satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)’s “clearly established” requirement, and if so, whether a jury’s consideration of and reliance on extrinsic evidence as part of a jury experiment violates this rule.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General (11)

This category consists of petitions that have already been considered at one or more conferences, after which the court asked the federal government for its views on what the court should do with the petition – often because a federal law or interest is involved. This process, during which the petitions effectively remain on hold, can take several months: after the court calls for the solicitor general's views (known as a "CVSG"), the litigants have the chance to meet with lawyers from the U.S. solicitor general's office to try to convince them that the government should support their side. After also consulting with other departments and agencies in the federal government that may have an interest in the case, the solicitor general then files a brief in which it recommends either that the court either grant or deny review. The federal government's recommendation normally carries significant, although not dispositive, weight with the justices.

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
25-293 General Dynamics Corp. v. Scharpf Whether plaintiffs adequately plead that defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment, for purposes of tolling the 15 U.S.C. § 15b (Clayton Act) statute of limitations, by alleging that defendants maintained an unwritten agreement.
25-257 Wells Pharma of Houston, LLC. v. Zyla Life Sciences, LLC. Whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts private state-law unfair competition and consumer protection claims premised on the marketing of compounded drugs without premarket approval.
25-183 Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Whether Title IX provides employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment.
25-159 Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission Whether in private condemnations under the Natural Gas Act, just compensation should be determined by reference to state law.
25-119 Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. NexPoint Advisors, L.P. (1) Whether a bankruptcy court can act as a gatekeeper to screen noncolorable lawsuits against nondebtor bankruptcy participants; and (2) whether a bankruptcy court can to a limited degree exculpate nondebtor bankruptcy participants from liability for conduct arising from the bankruptcy process.
25-113 Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (1) Under Employment Division v. Smith, whether state laws must always be deemed “neutral” unless plaintiffs prove officials acted against them with subjective religious animus and discriminatory motive; (2) under Smith, whether courts determining a law’s “general applicability” must disregard the law’s preference for secular over religious organizations on the grounds that secular and religious organizations are inherently motivated by different purposes and thus incomparable, or alternatively, whether courts must consider the law’s preference for secular over religious organizations so long as their activities pose a similar risk to the government’s asserted interest in the law; (3) whether hostile statements of government actors against religious adherents are sufficient to establish a First Amendment free exercise violation, or whether states may try to justify their hostility by satisfying strict scrutiny; and (4) Whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s exemption for individuals who participate in health care sharing ministries (HCSMs) preempts New Mexico’s determination that those individuals’ HCSMs may not operate in New Mexico until they forfeit their federal statuses as HCSMs under the ACA.
24-1130 Kingdom of Spain v. Blasket Renewable Investments LLC (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) allows United States courts to assert jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign without determining whether the sovereign consented to arbitrate differences between itself and the plaintiff; and (2) whether, in suits to confirm foreign arbitral awards, forum non conveniens dismissal is categorically unavailable, unavailable in at least some suits, or depends on the facts of each case.
24-1016 RiseandShine Corporation v. PepsiCo Whether trademark strength is a question of fact in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
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.
22o161 Nebraska v. Colorado Whether, when one state breaches another's contract and there are "direct, immediate, grave and irreparable injur[ies] to [a state] and its citizens," the court should grant the harmed state leave to file a complaint in an original action.