Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

This week we are hosting an online symposium on NIFLA v. Becerra, in which the Supreme Court will consider whether the disclosures required by California’s Reproductive FACT Act violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Contributions are available at this link.

Petitions We’re Watching

You can select a particular conference (or the cases referred to the Solicitor General) below or click here to instead sort by the case's name. (Sorting by case name prompts display of the complete, searchable list of cases.)

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
16-9604 Sykes v. U.S. Whether Missouri's second-degree burglary statute is divisible into two offenses with separate elements for the purpose of analyzing whether a conviction under that statute qualifies as a conviction for a “violent felony” as defined in the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
16-9649 Kasowski v. U.S. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in vacating and remanding the district court's disposition of petitioner's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of intervening decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and the Supreme Court.
16-9672 C.D., E.F., and G.H. v. U.S. (1) Whether the sentence-modification limits in 18 U.S.C. § 3582 are jurisdictional; and (2) whether a substantial-assistance departure from a statutory mandatory minimum sentence that is higher than the defendant's guideline range categorically renders that defendant ineligible for an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction.
16-9695 Richter v. U.S. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in vacating and remanding the district court's disposition of petitioner's motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) in light of intervening decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit and the Supreme Court.
17-5165 Serrano v. U.S. Whether Richardson v. United States precludes a double jeopardy appeal based on evidentiary insufficiency when the jury returns a guilty verdict that is set aside for a new trial.
17-6075 Tharpe v. Sellers (1) Whether reasonable jurists could disagree with the district court's rejection of the petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion, and, accordingly, whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability; (2) whether, given the petitioner's credible evidence that a juror voted for the death penalty because the petitioner is a “nigger,” the lower court erred in ruling that he failed to make “a substantial showing of the of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and (3) whether Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado created a new constitutional claim, and, if not, whether the lower courts erred in denying the petitioner's motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)(6).

Petitions Featured as Petition of the Day

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
17-770 ICTSI Oregon v. Int'l Longshore and Warehouse Union Whether a claim that parties to a collective bargaining agreement have violated the antitrust laws by conspiring to seize work controlled by employers outside the bargaining unit through coercion that violates the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(4)(B) and 158(e), is barred as a matter of law by application of the nonstatutory labor exemption.
17-755 Southern California Edison Company v. Nevada Department of Taxation Whether proof that a tax scheme violates the dormant commerce clause by favoring in-state interests over out-of-state interests, and thereby advantages some competitors over others within the same market, is sufficient to entitle the disfavored competitors to a remedy.
17-749 Johnson v. Stinson Whether Johnson v. Jones precludes a federal appellate court from exercising jurisdiction over a challenge to a denial of qualified immunity that turns not upon disputed facts, but upon the disputed application of the inferences drawn by the district court from the facts, in concluding that a reasonable jury could find a violation of a constitutional right which was clearly established; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, sitting en banc, applied an impermissibly broad reading of Johnson v. Jones in vacating the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit's three-judge panel and denying jurisdiction over Dr. Lowell T. Johnson's appeal, where the appeal sought review of the district court's determination that a reasonable jury could find that Dr. Johnson violated respondent's right to due process.
17-747 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Wendell (1) Whether the two-part standard of reviewing expert-admissibility rulings employed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, along with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd and 7th Circuits, improperly empowers these courts to reverse district court decisions to exclude evidence without “the deference that is the hallmark of abuse-of-discretion review"; and (2) whether an expert's qualifications and mere invocation of a scientific methodology can be sufficient to require admission of his testimony, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded, or whether Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that a witness, no matter how qualified, must also satisfy the court that his methodology was “reliably applied to the facts of the case,” as several other circuits have held.
17-736 Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC v. Oliva (1) Whether good faith reliance on controlling circuit precedent, prior to any retroactive change in that law, is an unintentional “bona fide error” and a procedure “reasonably adapted to avoid error” within the meaning of the “bona fide error” defense in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c); and (2) whether the due process clause prohibits punishment for conduct that was lawful when committed, but later prohibited by a retroactive change of law.
17-696 Gonzalez-Badillo v. U.S. Whether, upon obtaining general consent to search a bag or other area, law enforcement may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, “pry open” or otherwise cause intentional damages to personal property found within that might reasonably hold the object of the search.
17-670 Stone v. Montana Whether the Fifth Amendment's protection from double jeopardy attaches when the court accepts a defendant's guilty plea.
17-667 Pioneer Centres Holding Company Stock Ownership Plan and Its Trustees v. Alerus Financial, N.A. Whether a plaintiff bears the full burden of establishing loss causation under 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a), which allows an employee plan to recover for “any losses to the plan resulting from [a fiduciary's] breach of its duties” under ERISA, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits have held, or whether the burden shifts to the fiduciary to establish the absence of loss causation once the beneficiary makes a prima facie case by establishing breach of fiduciary duty and associated loss, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th Circuits have held.
17-664 Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras v. Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited (1) Whether the legal standard to invoke Basic Inc. v. Levinson's presumption of reliance at minimum requires empirical evidence that a security generally reacted in a directionally appropriate manner to new material information—that its price went up on good news and down on bad news—or, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled, whether the presumption can be based on other factors entirely unrelated to whether the alleged misstatement had price impact notwithstanding the Supreme Court's holding in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II); and (2) whether, contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit's ruling below, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process require that class membership be ascertainable through administratively feasible means.
17-659 All Nippon Airways v. Wortman (1) Whether the filed-rate doctrine—which the Supreme Court firmly established in Keogh v. Chicago & Northwest Railway Co. and reaffirmed in Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc.—still applies where rates are filed with a federal agency pursuant to a statutory regulatory scheme (as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, and 7th Circuits), or whether it no longer applies to such rates if a court finds the agency lacks sufficient “practical ability” to regulate those rates (as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit below); and (2) whether, and to what extent, the filed-rate doctrine applies where a federal agency retains regulatory authority over rates, but chooses to exercise that authority by establishing a regulatory system, which it periodically revisits and revises, that does not require each rate to be literally filed with the agency.
17-652 Henry v. City of Mt. Dora, Florida (1) Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the writ of habeas corpus was not available as a federal constitutional collateral attack on a state criminal conviction, as six circuits have held; or whether Heck v. Humphrey bars actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regardless of habeas corpus availability, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held here, and four other circuits have held; and (2) whether a juvenile adjudication noting a violation of a criminal statute constitutes a criminal conviction triggering the Heck v. Humphrey bar when state law expressly states that juvenile adjudications are not criminal convictions, and juveniles are not afforded basic constitutional protections required for criminal proceedings.
17-651 U.S. v. Jackson Whether the definition of the term “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.
17-637 FTS USA, LLC v. Monroe (1) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act and the due process clause permit a collective action to be certified and tried to verdict based on testimony from a small subset of putative plaintiffs without either any statistical or other similarly reliable showing that the experiences of those who testified are typical and can be reliably be extrapolated to the entire class, or a jury finding that the testifying witnesses are representative of the absent plaintiffs; and (2) whether the procedure for determining damages upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in which the district court unilaterally determined damages without any jury finding, violates the Seventh Amendment.
17-625 Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC v. Medtronic Whether a party may seek contractual prevailing-party attorney's fees without filing a timely post-judgment motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2).
17-618 Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. Department of Homeland Security (1) Whether, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, prevailing party status on appeal is separate and distinct from prevailing party status in the entire litigation; (2) whether separate claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking the identical remedy are distinct in all respects for fee purposes; and (3) whether a district court may raise objections to a fee request sua sponte, without giving the party making the request an opportunity to respond.
17-601 Medrano-Arzate v. May Whether a plaintiff can state a cognizable claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the deprivation of a citizen's substantive due process rights without alleging that the employee who carried out the municipal policy also acted with a constitutionally culpable state of mind.
17-579 Labor and Industry Review Commission of Wisconsin v. Coleman Whether a magistrate judge has the authority to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's frivolous or meritless lawsuit when the plaintiff has consented to the magistrate's authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), but the defendant has not yet been served.
17-571 Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Whether the “registration of [a] copyright claim has been made” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, deposit, and fee to the Copyright Office, as the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 5th and 9th Circuits have held, or only once the Copyright Office acts on that application, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and, in the decision below, the 11th Circuits have held.
17-562 Silver v. U.S. (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1957 requires the government to trace funds in a transaction involving a withdrawal from a commingled account, precluding a conviction where the account contains sufficient clean funds to cover the transfer; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit contravened the Supreme Court's decisions in Sekhar v. United States and Skilling v. United States by finding sufficient evidence to support Petitioner's convictions for extortion and honest services fraud.
17-557 Fedora v. Merit Systems Protection Board Whether the time period for a federal employee to seek review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional and therefore cannot be equitably tolled under any circumstances.
17-552 Wilson v. Callahan (1) Whether, in deadly force shooting cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred by requiring that the jury must be instructed regarding the specific legal justifications for the use of deadly force, and that the usual less specific instructions regarding the use of excessive force are not adequate, when such a requirement is in direct conflict with the Supreme Court's decision in Scott v. Harris and subsequent decisions, which abrogated the use of special standards in deadly force cases and established “reasonableness” as the ultimate and only inquiry; and (2) whether, in light of the direct conflict with several of its sister circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit's requirement that a jury must be instructed regarding the specific legal justifications for the use of deadly force creates an uncertainty preventing law enforcement officers from having adequate fair notice of what conduct is proscribed or constitutionally permissible, thereby further hampering the application of qualified immunity at the earliest stage of a case.
17-544 Vocke v. Merit Systems Protection Board Whether the time period for a federal employee to seek review from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of a final order of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional and therefore cannot be equitably tolled under any circumstances.
17-540 Starr Int'l Company v. U.S. Whether a private party with Article III standing may be barred from asserting constitutional claims for money damages against the federal government because of the equitable doctrine of “third-party prudential standing.”
17-537 Mercury Casualty Company v. Jones Whether the Fifth and 14th Amendments permit a state to fix the rates charged by a regulated entity at a level that precludes a fair rate of return on the regulated entity's capital.
17-522 Hankins v. U.S. Whether, where a victim entitled to restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 neither accepts restitution nor assigns it to the Crime Victims Fund, the district court may nonetheless order the defendant to pay restitution to the Crime Victims Fund, despite the absence of statutory authority for such an order.
17-512 Butts v. Sellers (1) Whether a court unreasonably applies Strickland v. Washington by measuring trial counsel's performance against the prevailing professional norms of a local judicial circuit where those local practices deviated from prevailing national or state norms; and (2) whether a federal habeas court's decision that it “cannot and will not second guess trial counsel's strategic decision” is consistent with Strickland.
17-504 U.S. Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission Whether the Federal Communications Commission lacked the clear congressional authorization required to assert plenary authority over a large and growing segment of the economy by imposing public-utility, common-carrier obligations on broadband Internet access service.
17-503 TechFreedom v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission's Order imposing common carrier status upon broadband providers constitutes a major rule of vast “economic and political significance,” requiring Congress to “speak clearly” if it wishes to delegate the matter to an agency's interpretive discretion, when the Order will affect (i) every American Internet service provider, which collectively invest over $78 billion in network investments annually as of 2014; (ii) every Internet content provider, an industry that currently includes the five largest companies in the United States by market capitalization; and (iii) every Internet consumer, currently totaling over 275 million Americans; and, if so, whether Congress expressly authorized the FCC to issue the major rule, when (i) Congress enacted Telecommunications Act of 1996, upon which the FCC relies, with the express purpose of ensuring “the Internet and other interactive computer services,” remain “unfettered by Federal or State regulation,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2); and (ii) the FCC concedes that “the Communications Act did not clearly resolve the issue of how broadband should be classified”; and (2) whether the FCC's reinterpretation of the term “public switched network” to include IP enabled services is, by virtue of implicating additional services, a minor or major question.
17-502 NCTA- The Internet and Television Association v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether it was arbitrary and capricious for the Federal Communications Commission to reverse long-standing policy without identifying and substantiating any actual changed circumstances or accounting for broadband providers’ massive reliance interests; (2) whether the FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to give adequate notice of key aspects of the final order; and (3) whether the FCC exceeded its statutory authorization by reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service.”
17-501 CTIA-The Wireless Association v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission unlawfully reclassified broadband Internet access service as a “telecommunications service” under 47 U.S.C. § 153; and (2) whether the FCC unlawfully reclassified mobile broadband Internet access service as a “commercial mobile service” under 47 U.S.C. § 332.
17-500 American Cable Association v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission has statutory authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to impose common-carrier regulation on Internet access service; and (2) whether the FCC's order below was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or undertaken without observance of the procedures required by law.
17-499 AT&T v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission has statutory authority to reclassify fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service as a “telecommunications service” subject to common carrier regulation; and (2) whether the FCC has statutory authority to reclassify mobile broadband Internet access service as a “commercial mobile service” subject to common carrier regulation.
17-498 Berninger v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission's assumption of gatekeeper power over new methods of communication, “in the most important place [] for the exchange of views. . . the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet,’” violates the First Amendment; (2) whether the radical reinterpretation of the Communications Act of 1934 by the FCC is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., and, if so, whether that deference violates Article I, § 1 of the Constitution; and (3) whether the FCC has statutory authority to promulgate the Open Internet Order, vastly expanding regulation of the Internet, in light of the policy enacted by Congress “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services [defined as services that provide access to the Internet], unfettered by Federal or State regulation,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2).
17-494 South Dakota v. Wayfair Whether the Supreme Court should abrogate Quill Corp. v. North Dakota's sales-tax-only, physical presence requirement.
17-449 American Triumph, LLC v. Tabingo Whether punitive damages may be awarded to a Jones Act seaman in a personal injury suit alleging a breach of the general maritime duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.
17-443 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Block (1) Whether, when there is no way to tell whether a prior jury found particular facts against a party, due process permits those facts to be conclusively presumed against that party in subsequent litigation; and (2) whether strict-liability and negligence claims based on the findings by the class-action jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. are pre-empted by the many federal statutes that manifest Congress' intent that cigarettes continue to be lawfully sold in the United States.
17-419 Dawson v. Steager Whether the Supreme Court's precedent and the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity bar states from exempting groups of state retirees from state income tax while discriminating against similarly situated federal retirees based on the source of their retirement income.
17-415 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Graham (1) Whether, when there is no way to tell whether a prior jury found particular facts against a party, due process permits those facts to be conclusively presumed against that party in subsequent litigation; and (2) whether, if the Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. jury's findings are deemed to establish that all cigarettes are inherently defective, claims based on those findings are pre-empted by the many federal statutes that manifest Congress's intent that cigarettes continue to be lawfully sold in the United States.
17-401 Philip Morris USA v. Lourie (1) Whether, when there is no way to tell whether a prior jury found particular facts against a party, due process permits those facts to be conclusively presumed against that party in subsequent litigation; and (2) whether strict-liability and negligence claims based on the findings by the class-action jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. are pre-empted by the many federal statutes that manifested Congress's intent that cigarettes continue to be lawfully sold in the United States.
17-400 Philip Morris USA v. Naugle (1) Whether, when there is no way to tell whether a prior jury found particular facts against a party, due process permits those facts to be conclusively presumed against that party in subsequent litigation; and (2) whether strict-liability and negligence claims based on the findings by the class-action jury in Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc. are pre-empted by the many federal statutes that manifested Congress's intent that cigarettes continue to be lawfully sold in the United States.
17-379 EchoStar Satellite, LLC v. Florida Department of Revenue (1) Whether the Florida Supreme Court erred in concluding that a law cannot discriminate against interstate commerce unless it benefits purely in-state companies and burdens purely out-of-state companies; and (2) whether a court evaluating a law's discriminatory purpose is forbidden from considering evidence other than the law's text and formal legislative history.
17-375 Kokocinski v. Collins (1) Whether a federal court of appeals reviews de novo a district court's dismissal with prejudice of a shareholder-derivative action based on a special litigation committee's recommendation, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 9th Circuits have held, or for an abuse of discretion, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 11th Circuits; (2) whether a federal court of appeals reviews an appeal from a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 order in a derivative action de novo, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 6th, and 7th Circuits have held, or for an abuse of discretion, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits; and (3) whether a plaintiff in a shareholder-derivative action is entitled to discovery before the court rules on a special litigation committee's motion to dismiss.
17-346 Touchet v. Estis Well Service, LLC (1) Whether seamen may recover punitive damages for their employer's willful and wanton breach of the general maritime law duty to provide a seaworthy vessel, as held by the Washington Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th and 11th Circuits; or whether punitive damages are categorically unavailable in an action for unseaworthiness, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 5th, and 6th Circuits and the Texas Supreme Court; and (2) whether the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104, “prohibits the recovery of punitive damages in action under that statute,” a question explicitly left open by the Supreme Court in Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend.
17-343 Convergex Group, LLC v. Fletcher Whether a participant in a defined-benefit ERISA plan may claim “representational” standing and rely on only his plan's injuries to satisfy article III's standing requirement, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has held; or whether the participant must establish his own article III standing to proceed, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th Circuits have held.
17-342 Silvester v. Becerra (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit improperly applied lenient scrutiny in a Second Amendment challenge to the application of California's full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers who pass their background check in fewer than 10 days and already own another firearm or have a concealed carry license; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory powers to cabin the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's concerted resistance to and disregard of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decisions.
17-340 New Prime v. Oliveira (1) Whether a dispute over applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act's Section 1 exemption is an arbitrability issue that must be resolved in arbitration pursuant to a valid delegation clause; and (2) whether the FAA's Section 1 exemption, which applies on its face only to “contracts of employment,” is inapplicable to independent contractor agreements.
17-321 Christensen v. Tennessee Whether a private citizen has the right to revoke a law enforcement officer's implied license to enter property to conduct a knock-and-talk by placing a “No Trespassing” sign on their property.
17-313 Ledezma-Cosino v. Sessions Whether, when assessing a statute under rational basis review, a court must consider both the ultimate effect of the statute and the statutory means by which it achieves that effect, or whether a court must look only at the ultimate effect of the statute; and (2) whether the habitual drunkard provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) is unconstitutionally vague.
17-302 Perez-Guzman v. Sessions (1) Whether a court must defer to an agency's position under Chevron USA, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council when the only ambiguity is a direct conflict between two statutory sections, which the agency has not addressed; and (2) whether the Immigration and Nationality Act's asylum provision affords a noncitizen in reinstatement proceedings the opportunity to seek asylum in the United States.
17-301 Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education v. Whitaker (1) Whether a school policy requiring boys and girls to use separate bathroom facilities that correspond to their biological sex is sex stereotyping that constitutes discrimination “based on sex” in violation of Title IX; and (2) whether a school policy requiring boys and girls to use separate bathroom facilities that correspond to their biological sex is a sex-based classification triggering heightened scrutiny under an Equal Protection analysis.
17-294 Thompson v. Park Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that evidence can be material for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging deprivation of compulsory process or denial of a fair trial when the defendant was acquitted at trial.
17-270 White v. U.S. Whether, under the Speedy Trial Act, time engaged in a plea negotiation that does not result in a finalized plea agreement is automatically excludable as “other proceedings concerning the defendant” under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1), as four circuits hold; or whether such time is excludable only if the district court makes case-specific “ends of justice” findings under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7), as four other circuits hold.
17-241 Reyes v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in deferring to the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation of the term “particular social group” from the Immigration and Nationality Act under Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council.
17-202 Daleidan v. National Abortion Federation Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred by its unprecedented holding, in conflict with decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 4th Circuits, and the consistent teachings of the Supreme Court, that the First Amendment permits issuance of an injunction restraining the release of information of undisputed and legitimate public interest; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's application of the “abuse of discretion” standard on appeal in a case involving restrictions on First Amendment rights merits summary reversal.
17-133 Alaska Oil and Gas Association v. Ross Whether, when the government determines that a species that is not presently endangered will lose its habitat due to climate change by the end of the century, the National Marine Fisheries Services may list that species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
17-130 Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission Whether administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are officers of the United States within the meaning of the appointments clause.
17-118 State of Alaska v. Ross Whether, when the government determines that a species that is not presently endangered will lose its habitat due to climate change by the end of the century, the National Marine Fisheries Service may list that species as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
16-1519 Lagos v. U.S. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers costs for reimbursement under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act that were “neither required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim's own purposes and unprompted by any official government action.
16-1369 Arizona v. Bahr Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding, in conflict with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, that the Environmental Protection Agency's interpretation of the Clean Air Act's contingency measures provision, 42 U.S.C. § 7502(c)(9), was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
16-1220 Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in conflict with the decisions of three courts of appeals, erred in exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over a pre-trial order denying a motion to dismiss following a full trial on the merits; (2) whether a court may exercise independent review of an appearing foreign sovereign's interpretation of its domestic law (as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and District of Columbia Circuits), or whether a court is “bound to defer” to a foreign government's legal statement, as a matter of international comity, whenever the foreign government appears before the court (as held by the opinion below in accord with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit); and (3) whether a court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis, as a matter of discretionary international comity, over an otherwise valid Sherman Antitrust Act claim involving purely domestic injury. CVSG: 11/14/2017.
16-1215 Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling Whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor's . . . financial condition” within Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. CVSG: 11/09/2017.
16-1189 E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Smiley (1) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits an employer from using compensation paid to employees for non-compensable, bona fide meal breaks that it included in their regular rate of pay as a credit against compensation owed for work time; and (2) whether an agency's interpretation of a statute advanced for the first time in litigation is entitled to Skidmore v. Swift & Co. deference.
16-1011 WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). CVSG: 12/06/2017.
16-970 Rinehart v. California Whether the Supreme Court of California erred in holding, in conflict with decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and Federal Circuits and the Colorado Supreme Court, that the Mining Law of 1972, as amended, does not pre-empt state bans of mining on federal lands despite being “an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of that law.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
17-204 Apple v. Pepper Whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.
16-1498 Washington Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Whether the Yakama Treaty of 1855 creates a right for tribal members to avoid state taxes on off-reservation commercial activities that make use of public highways.
16-1275 Virginia Uranium v. Warren Whether the Atomic Energy Act pre-empts a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction (here uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (here, the milling of uranium and the management of the resulting tailings).
16-1180 Brewer v. Arizona Dream Act Coalition (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in creating an immigration-specific rule under which state police power regulations that “arrang[e]” federal immigration classifications are pre-empted, even if pre-emption was not “the clear and manifest purpose of Congress”; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred in assuming that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an executive-branch policy of non-enforcement, was valid “federal law” capable of pre-empting a state police power regulation.
16-1094 Republic of Sudan v. Harrison Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred by holding – in direct conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 5th and 7th Circuits and in the face of an amicus brief from the United States – that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may serve the foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by mail addressed and dispatched to the head of the foreign state's ministry of foreign affairs “via” or in “care of” the foreign state's diplomatic mission in the United States, despite U.S. obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to preserve mission inviolability.
16-1071 Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization Whether the Fifth Amendment's due process clause precludes federal courts from exercising personal jurisdiction in this suit by American victims of terrorist attacks abroad carried out by the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Term Snapshot
Awards