Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

On Monday we expect orders at 9:30 a.m.

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)
13-1559 Corr v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (1) Whether, as the United States implicitly conceded below, the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) exercises sufficient federal power to mandate separation-of-powers scrutiny for purposes of a suit seeking injunctive relief and invoking the Little Tucker Act to seek monetary relief; and (2) whether the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C. §§ 49101 et seq., which transferred to MWAA all of the federal government's “rights, liabilities, and obligations” concerning, inter alia, Dulles Airport and its “access highways and other related facilities,” violates the separation of powers, including the Executive Vesting, Appointments, and Take Care Clauses of Article II, by depriving the president of control over MWAA, an entity exercising – as the United States admits – executive branch functions pursuant to federal law. CVSG: 05/22/2015.
14-848 Maryland v. Kulbicki Whether an appellate court violates the core principles of Strickland v. Washington when it conducts a post-hoc assessment of trial counsel’s performance based on scientific advances not available at the time of trial.
14-1143 Mullenix v. Luna (1) Whether, when viewing the facts from the perspective of an officer who fired his service rifle at a vehicle involved in a high-speed chase, the officer acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment when an officer in his situation would believe that the suspect posed a risk of serious harm to other officers or members of the public; and (2) whether the law clearly established that this use of potentially deadly force was unlawful when existing precedent did not address the use of force against a fleeing suspect who had explicitly threatened to shoot police officers.

Petitions for Conference of 09.28.2015

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
15-236 CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC v. Areso Whether California's Iskanian rule, which categorically exempts representative Private Attorney General Act actions from mandatory arbitration, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
15-162 Paske v. Fitzgerald (1) Whether the rule in USPS Bd. of Governors v. Aikens applies to the evaluation of a discrimination claim at summary judgment; and (2) whether a plaintiff claiming discrimination is required to prove, as an element of a prima facie case, that he or she was treated less favorably than a “nearly identical” “similarly situated” individual who is not a member of the protected class, a Fifth Circuit requirement which courts have characterized as “stringent,” “strict,” and “demanding.”
15-141 American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (1) Whether the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) created a public forum by accepting for display on its property a wide array of controversial political and public-issue ads, including ads that address the same controversial subject matter as petitioners' pro-Israel ad, and thus violated the First Amendment by rejecting petitioners' ad based on its content; and (2) regardless of the nature of the forum, whether the MBTA's rejection of Petitioners' advertisement based on an advertising guideline that prohibits ads considered by MBTA officials to be “demeaning and disparaging” was a viewpoint-based restriction of speech in violation of the First Amendment.
15-137 U.S. v. Newman Whether the court of appeals erroneously departed from this Court's decision in Dirks v. SEC by holding that liability under a gifting theory requires “proof of a meaningfully close personal relationship that generates an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature.”
15-134 Schwab Investments v. Northstar Financial Advisors (1) Whether a plaintiff who lacked Article III standing at the time it filed its complaint may subsequently cure this defect by later acquiring a claim or interest and then amending its complaint to allege its post-filing acquisition; and (2) whether a mutual fund's mandatory SEC disclosures may constitute a “contract” between the fund and its investors sufficient to support a private common-law breach-of-contract action against the fund distinct from other rights of action available under the federal securities laws.
15-113 Lawson v. Sauer Inc. Whether Bankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(2)(A) renders non-dischargeable a claim against a debtor based on a fraudulent transfer, in circumstances where the debtor did not make a misrepresentation.
15-107 Sun Life & Health Insurance Company v. Evans Whether a decision by a court that an ERISA plan administrator’s initial decision was mistaken permits the court to make determinations in the first instance on claim issues the plan previously had no reason to address, or whether the court is required to remand the claim to the plan for an initial determination on those issues.
15-96 Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority v. U.S. Whether the False Claims Act's public-disclosure bar applies to an action that is based upon the disclosure of allegations in an administrative audit or investigation if the disclosures were made to individuals with no involvement in the alleged fraud (as the Second Circuit has held) or an appropriate government official (as the Seventh Circuit has held) or, rather, whether a disclosure qualifies as “public” only if it is made to “outsiders” to the audit or investigation (as the Ninth Circuit has held and as the Sixth Circuit held below).
15-79 Bailey v. City of Chicago (1) Whether the 48-hour period the Court established in County of Riverside v. McLaughlin authorizes the police to detain an arrestee for 48 hours while they gather additional evidence to persuade a prosecutor to file charges; and (2) whether the Court should revisit the 48-hour time limit it established nearly 25 years ago in County of Riverside in light of technological advances in computer networks and automatic fingerprint identification systems.
15-66 United Refining Co. v. Cottillion (1) Whether, as the Third Circuit held below and the Sixth Circuit also has ruled, Section 1054(g) of the Employee Retirement and Security Act's prohibition on a plan “amendment” can include an administrator's interpretation of the terms of a legitimate plan provision - or whether, as the D.C., Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have held, a plan “amendment” under Section 1054(g) refers only to changes an employer makes to plan language; and (2) whether the administrator's new interpretation of the plan was reasonable, subject to deference under Conkright v. Frommert, and not grounds for a claim under either Section 1054(g) or Section 1132(a)(1)(B) that it denied participants benefits due under the terms of the plan.
15-58 City of Los Angeles v. Contreras (1) Whether the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard requires that a suspect threaten a police officer with a weapon before the police officer can use deadly force to apprehend the suspect, or whether Tennessee v. Garner allows a police officer to use deadly force to prevent the suspect's escape if based on the totality of the circumstances, the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others, and where feasible some warning has been given; (2) whether Tennessee v. Garner defeats a police officer's entitlement to qualified immunity by providing fair and clear warning that it is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to use deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect has just committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, if after the shooting it is discovered the suspect was unarmed.
15-50 Henry v. Louisiana Whether Louisiana's per se ban on the introduction of eyewitness identification expert testimony violates the Due Process, Confrontation, and Compulsory Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
15-46 Davis v. Abbott (1) Under what circumstances are plaintiffs who obtain preliminary relief in cases that do not proceed to final judgment prevailing parties eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees; (2) whether the simplicity of a legal claim is a factor relevant only to the amount of fees awarded as the Third and Tenth Circuits have held and as this Court and others have suggested, or whether “simple” legal claims, otherwise made eligible for fees by Congress, involve insufficient “merits” analysis to trigger prevailing party status, as the Fifth Circuit held.
15-41 W.L. Gore & Associates v. Bard Peripheral Vascular Whether 35 U.S.C. § 261 requires that a grant or conveyance of an exclusive patent license be in writing.
15-8 Applied Underwriters v. Arrow Recycling Solutions Whether a generic choice-of-law provision in an otherwise broad arbitration agreement, one that does not reference a particular state, should be read to reflect intent by the parties to avoid preemption under the Federal Arbitration Act and instead to apply a rule of that state that limits or bars arbitration of an otherwise covered dispute despite the strong preference for enforcement of arbitration provisions as expressed in the Federal Arbitration Act.
15-5 Nevada v. Torres (1) Whether, after lawfully obtaining a suspect's ID to verify his age, briefly retaining and running the ID through dispatch to check its validity and for warrants transforms an otherwise lawful encounter into an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment; (2) whether evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest based on an outstanding warrant should be suppressed because the warrant was discovered during an investigatory stop, part of which was later found unlawful.
14-1531 Cowser-Griffin v. Griffin Whether ERISA permits a state court to retroactively reassign plan benefits after the plan participant's death when the participant directed that the benefits would go to his spouse and when the plan documents directed that the benefits would go to the spouse absent the spouse's consent to reassignment.
14-1504 Wittman v. Personhuballah (1) Whether the court below erred in failing to make the required finding that race rather than politics predominated in District 3, where there is no dispute that politics explains the Enacted Plan; (2) whether the court below erred in relieving plaintiffs of their burden to show an alternative plan that achieves the General Assembly's political goals, is comparably consistent with traditional districting principles, and brings about greater racial balance than the Enacted Plan; (3) whether, regardless of any other error, the finding of a Shaw violation by the court below was based on clearly erroneous fact-finding; (4) whether the majority erred in holding that the Enacted Plan fails strict scrutiny because it increased District 3's black voting-age population percentage above the benchmark percentage, when the undisputed evidence establishes that the increase better complies with neutral principles than would reducing the percentage and no racial bloc voting analysis would support a reduction capable of realistically securing Section 5 preclearance.
14-1495 Adame v. Lynch Whether, in a case seeking judicial review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' or an immigration judge's disposition of an application for cancellation of removal, a court of appeals has jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review mixed questions of law and fact.
14-1455 Fred Martin Motor Co. v. Spitzer Autoworld Akron, LLC Whether, by reopening the final order of a federal bankruptcy court and permitting a private arbitrator to reverse it, Section 747 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 is unconstitutional.
14-1177 Oklahoma v. Hobia Whether Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community requires the dismissal of a state’s suit to prevent tribal officers from conducting gaming that would be unlawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and a state-tribal compact when (1) the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief has been brought against tribal officials - not the tribe; (2) the gaming will occur in Indian country, on the land of another tribe; and (3) the state-tribal compact's arbitration provision does not require arbitration before filing suit.
14-1153 LaChance v. Massachusetts Whether a defendant asserting ineffective assistance under Strickland v. Washington based upon counsel's failure to raise a structural error must – in addition to demonstrating deficient performance – show that he was prejudiced by counsel's ineffectiveness, or whether prejudice is presumed because the harm from structural errors is “necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate,” Sullivan v. Louisiana.
14-1140 Tibbs v. Bunnell Whether state law may nullify the federal “patient safety work product” privilege, or whether, instead, the Kentucky Supreme Court erred by interpreting it not to protect information “normally contained in” documents subject to state reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
14-1136 Nestle Purina PetCare Company v. Curts Whether, under the All Writs Act and the Anti-Injunction Act, a district court's injunction to enjoin parallel state litigation pending final approval of a comprehensive settlement of a complex case can ever be “necessary in aid of its jurisdiction.”

Petitions for Conference of 10.09.2015

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
15-290 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. Whether the United States Army Corps of Engineers' determination that the property at issue contains “waters of the United States” protected by the Clean Water Act, constitutes “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court," and is therefore subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
15-171 DeFazio v. Hollister (1) Which party bears the burden of proving loss to the plan under ERISA § 409(a); and (2) whether private party contracts that dictate fiduciary obligations (and plan asset valuations) are preempted by ERISA.
15-135 Rubin v. Padilla Whether California's “top two” electoral system substantially burdens voter rights of political association, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, by excluding the great majority of candidates and their diverse messages from the moment of peak political participation.
15-27 Utah v. U.S. Whether, to invoke a district court's jurisdiction under the Quiet Title Act to adjudicate the merits of a quiet title action, a State must establish facts that show affirmative action by the United States that demonstrates its claim to title in the property, or alternatively whether a State can rely on facts that raise a cloud on the State's title?

Petitions Not Set for Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
15-319 UnitedHealth Group Inc. v. Denbo (1) Whether a claims administrator with no obligation to pay benefits under an ERISA plan is a proper defendant in a § 502(a)(1)(B) action for benefits due under that plan; and (2) whether a § 502(a)(3) claim can be dismissed on the pleadings because a proper § 502(a)(1)(B) claim would fully remedy the plaintiff's injury.
15-308 City of New York v. Newton (1) Whether a convicted prisoner can bring a § 1983 damages claim for deprivation of liberty - based on state DNA evidence-access procedures not mandated by the Constitution - when the same prisoner would have no due process right to habeas or actual release from prison due to alleged negligence in storing evidence; and (2) whether a municipality may be held liable under Monell v. Department of Social Services for negligent actions of line-level municipal employees in misfiling information necessary for the tracking and retrieval of evidence from a concluded criminal prosecution that would later prove exculpatory.
15-307 Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Apotex Inc. (1) Whether Article III's case or controversy requirement can be satisfied when the suit seeks a judgment of non-infringement of a disclaimed patent; and (2) whether Congress can create Article III jurisdiction by imposing statutory consequences that turn on obtaining a judgment of non-infringement of a disclaimed patent.
15-289 Thompson v. Lynch Whether an alien who fails to correct an address erroneously recorded by the government on a Notice to Appear, and who is subsequently ordered removed in absentia, may reopen his removal order when he was never advised of his obligation under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(d)(1) to correct the government's error.
15-245 Mann v. U.S. Whether the district court has jurisdiction to expunge an individual's criminal record on equitable grounds.
15-244 Embarq Corporation v. Fulghum Whether the “fraud or concealment” exception to the statute of repose found in 29 U.S.C. § 1113 for alleged breaches of an ERISA fiduciary's duty applies only when a defendant takes affirmative steps to hide the alleged breach - as the First, Third, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and DC Circuits have held - or whether the exception can be invoked any time the underlying claim is premised on a fraud theory - as the Second and Tenth Circuits have held.
15-241 Fulghum v. Embarq Corporation Whether an ERISA-governed welfare plan must include “clear and express” vesting language as a prerequisite to a contractual-vesting claim as a matter of law.
15-233 Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust Whether Chapter 9 of the federal Bankruptcy Code, which does not apply to Puerto Rico, nonetheless preempts a Puerto Rico statute creating a mechanism for the Commonwealth's public utilities to restructure their debts.
15-187 Perez v. Stephens (1) Whether a federal court of appeals is authorized to review sua sponte and invalidate an order reopening the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), when the appellee never appealed the order; (2) whether attorney abandonment, which Maples v. Thomas held is an “extraordinary circumstance” equitably excusing a resulting failure to appeal a denial of state habeas relief, is likewise an “extraordinary circumstance” warranting reentry of a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen the time to appeal when the abandonment caused the failure to appeal a denial of federal habeas relief; and (3) whether notice of the entry of a judgment is imputed to a party for purposes of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) when the party's lawyer receives notice of the judgment, but, instead of notifying the party, abandons him.
15-182 Farmer v. U.S. Whether the “additional duties” clause of the Federal Magistrates Act authorizes a magistrate to accept a felony guilty plea with the defendant's consent.
15-170 Morris v. U.S. Whether the First Circuit erroneously held - in conflict with the Fourth, Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits, but consistent with the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits - that a mandatory minimum sentence imposed in violation of Alleyne, based on a fact found by a judge by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing, can be deemed not to have affected the defendant's substantial rights, if an appellate court concludes that the fact was supported by “overwhelming evidence” offered only at sentencing, but never presented to a jury or admitted by the defendant in connection with a guilty plea.
15-163 Rochow v. Life Insurance Company of North America Whether the amount of a remedy based on the improper delay in the payment of a benefit should be based on:(1) only the amount needed to redress the loss that the beneficiary sustained as a result of the wrongful delay (the rule in the Sixth Circuit); (2) either the amount needed to redress the loss that the beneficiary sustained as a result of the wrongful delay or the amount needed to disgorge any gain improperly realized by the plan as a result of that wrongful delay (the rule in the Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth and District of Columbia Circuits); (3) the most analogous state prejudgment interest rate (the rule in the Fifth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits); or (4) the § 1961 post-judgment interest rate (the rule in the Ninth Circuit).
15-161 Rapelje v. Blackston (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit erred when it granted habeas relief based on the theory that respondent was denied the right to confront the two witnesses when the state courts did not allow him to introduce their post-testimony written recantations to impeach their former testimony; (2) whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding that a written statement recanting former testimony is not “extrinsic” to that testimony and that such statements may be admitted by merely “recit[ing] [them] to the jury” without an authenticating witness; and (3) whether the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the state court's determination that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt was objectively unreasonable, where there was other substantial evidence of respondent’s guilt and the evidence was interlocking and not dependent on the credibility of any single witness.
15-158 Sun-Times Media, LLC v. Dahlstrom (1) Whether, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, police officers may sue a newspaper for publishing truthful information relating to matters of public concern if a judge determines that the information on balance was unworthy of constitutional protection; (2) whether, in cases where information was allegedly unlawfully supplied to a newspaper by authorized government sources, the government may punish the acquisition and ensuing publication; (3) whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution permits an interpretation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act that allows local police officers to sue a newspaper for publishing information provided by the Illinois Secretary of State; and (4) whether public officials can invoke the DPPA's restrictions on “disclosure” of “personal information” that “identifies an individual” to censor a newspaper's investigative report on a questionable police lineup because the report contained descriptive information supplied by the state government (e.g., height, weight, eye and hair color) that is not listed in the DPPA's definition of “personal information.”
15-156 Joseph v. City of Burlington Whether the Federal Aviation Act preempts all state and local general land-use regulation aimed at addressing off-site airport noise, as the Vermont Supreme Court and other state high courts have held, or whether it preempts only those state and local general land-use regulations that conflict with federal law or intrude into a preempted field in their scope and effect, as the Second Circuit and several other federal courts of appeals and state high courts have held.
15-152 Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris (1) Whether a state official's demand for all significant donors to a nonprofit organization, as a precondition to engaging in constitutionally-protected speech, constitutes a First Amendment injury; and (2) whether the “exacting scrutiny” standard applied in compelled disclosure cases permits state officials to demand donor information based upon generalized “law enforcement” interests, without making any specific showing of need.
15-146 Davis v. U.S. (1) Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cell phone user over the course of 67 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies where the search was based on a court order sought by a prosecutor rather than a warrant sought by police, particularly when the governing statute provided the prosecutor with the option to pursue a warrant but the prosecutor ignored it.
15-145 Husky Int'l Electronics v. Ritz Whether the “actual fraud” bar to discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code applies only when the debtor has made a false representation, or whether the bar also applies when the debtor has deliberately obtained money through a fraudulent-transfer scheme that was actually intended to cheat a creditor.
15-109 Simmons v. Himmelreich Whether a final judgment in an action brought under Section 1346(b) dismissing the claim on the ground that relief is precluded by one of the Federal Tort Claims Act’s exceptions to liability, 28 U.S.C. 2680, bars a subsequent action by the claimant against the federal employees whose acts gave rise to the FTCA claim.
15-105 Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell (1) Whether the availability of a regulatory method for nonprofit religious employers to comply with HHS's contraceptive mandate eliminates either the substantial burden on religious exercise or the violation of RFRA that this Court recognized in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; (2) whether HHS can satisfy RFRA's demanding test for overriding sincerely held religious objections in circumstances where HHS itself insists that overriding the religious objection will not fulfill HHS's regulatory objective - namely, the provision of no-cost contraceptives to the objector's employees; and (3) whether the First Amendment allows HHS to discriminate among nonprofit religious employers who share the same sincere religious objections to the contraceptive mandate by exempting some religious employers while insisting that others comply.
15-88 Boca Raton Firefighters & Police Pension Fund v. Bahash Whether a verifiably false factual statement about a matter of obvious importance to a company can nevertheless constitute inactionable “puffery” under the federal securities laws.
15-65 Lizcano v. Texas Whether Texas's standard for determining if a capital defendant meets the second prong of the definition of intellectual disability (“deficits in adaptive functioning”) violates the Eighth Amendment in light of Atkins v. Virginia and Hall v. Florida.
15-28 Listecki v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (1) Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act shields religious exercise from burdensome applications of federal law only in litigation against the government, and - even if it does - whether statutorily appointed officers carrying out federal-law duties act “under color of law"; (2) whether the Bankruptcy Code's protection of creditors is a compelling governmental interest.
15-10 Loden v. Fisher Whether a capital defendant's decision not to introduce an inadequate mitigation defense at sentencing automatically defeats a claim that counsel's failure to prepare that defense deprived the defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel.
14-1535 Georgiou v. U.S. (1) Whether prosecutors are permitted to withhold materials covered by Brady v. Maryland when it is possible that the defendant may have been able to discover the materials through another source; (2) whether a court of appeals may conclude that withheld evidence was not material, consistent with Brady and its progeny, without viewing the evidence cumulatively and in light of the entire record.
14-1306 Erwin v. U.S. Whether a court of appeals, having found an appeal barred by an appeal waiver in a plea agreement may vacate the judgment and remand to allow imposition of a higher sentence in the absence of a cross-appeal by the government.
14-997 Currier v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (1) Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires Mississippi to exempt physicians at the State's only abortion clinic from complying with a medically legitimate health and safety regulation that applies to physicians at all other outpatient surgical facilities; and (2) whether Mississippi House Bill 1390, which requires that abortion physicians have admitting privileges at a local hospital to handle complications that require emergency hospitalization, imposes an undue burden under Planned Parenthood v. Casey regardless of the geographical availability of abortion services in adjoining states in light of the equal protection principle articulated in Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22o144 Nebraska and Oklahoma v. Colorado (1) Whether the Court will grant Nebraska and Oklahoma leave to file an original action to seek a declaratory judgment stating that Sections 16(4) and (5) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution are preempted by federal law, and therefore unconstitutional and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution; (2) whether Colorado should be enjoined from any and all application and implementation of Sections 16(4) and (5) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution; (3) whether Colorado should be enjoined from any and all application and implementation of statutes or regulations promulgated pursuant to Sections 16(4) and (5) of Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution; and (4) whether Colorado should be ordered to pay the plaintiff states’ costs and expenses associated with this legal action, including attorneys’ fees.
14-1168 Smith v. Aegon Companies Pension Plan Whether ERISA’s special venue provision, § 1132(e)(2), and a plaintiff’s choice of venue under that provision, may be abrogated by a more restrictive venue-selection clause in an ERISA plan.
14-694 Fiordaliso v. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC Whether, where, as part of a state-directed procurement, the resulting contract between local utilities and a power plant developer provides for a payment to the power plant developer based on the differential between the developer's competitive bid to build a new power plant and the amount the developer receives from capacity sales in the auction supervised by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and where the contract does not involve any actual sale of capacity, the contract is “field preempted” as an attempt by the state to set interstate electric rates. CVSG: 09/16/2015.
14-634 CPV Power Development v. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC Whether, where, as a result of a state-directed procurement, the contract price to build and operate a power plant is the developer's bid price, and may result in payments beyond what the developer earns selling the plant's capacity in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)-supervised auction, the program is “field preempted” as a state's attempt to set interstate wholesale rates. CVSG: 09/16/2015.
14-623 CPV Maryland, LLC v. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC (1) Whether, where, as a result of a state-directed procurement, the contract price to build and operate a power plant is the developer’s bid price, and may result in payments beyond what the developer earns selling the plant’s capacity in the auction supervised by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the program is “field preempted” as a state’s attempt to set interstate wholesale rates; and (2) whether a state-directed contract to support construction of a power plant is “conflict preempted” because its long-term pricing structure provides incentives different from the incentives provided by prices generated in the FERC-supervised yearly capacity auction. CVSG: 09/16/2015.
14-614 Nazarian v. PPL EnergyPlus, LLC (1) Whether, when a seller offers to build generation and sell wholesale power on a fixed-rate contract basis, the Federal Power Act field-preempts a state order directing retail utilities to enter into the contract; and (2) whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s acceptance of an annual regional capacity auction preempts states from requiring retail utilities to contract at fixed rates with sellers who are willing to commit to sell into the auction on a long-term basis. CVSG: 09/16/2015.

Petitions Held for Another Conference


Term Snapshot