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)
15-513 State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel Rigsby (1) What standard governs the decision whether to dismiss a relator's claim for violation of the False Claims Act's seal requirement; and (2) whether and under what standard a corporation or other organization may be deemed to have “knowingly” presented a false claim, or used or made a false record, in violation of Section 3729(a) of the False Claims Act based on the purported collective knowledge or imputed ill intent of employees other than the employee who made the decision to present the claim or record found to be false, where (i) the employee submitting the claim or record independently made the decision to present the claim or record in good faith after reviewing the available information and (ii) there was no causal nexus between the submission of the false claim or record and the purported collective knowledge or imputed ill intent of those other employees. CVSG: 04/14/2016.
15-789 Johnson v. Lee (1) Whether, for federal habeas purposes, California’s procedural rule generally barring review of claims that were available but not raised on direct appeal is an “adequate” state-law ground for rejection of a claim; and (2) whether, when a federal habeas petitioner argues that a state procedural default is not an “adequate” state-law ground for rejection of a claim, the burden of persuasion as to adequacy rests on the habeas petitioner (as in the Fifth Circuit) or on the state (as in the Ninth and Tenth Circuits).
15-797 Moore v. Texas (1) Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed; and (2) whether execution of a condemned individual more than three-and-one-half decades after the imposition of a death sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
15-827 Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
15-862 Stormans v. Wiesman Whether a law prohibiting religiously motivated conduct violates the Free Exercise Clause when it exempts the same conduct when done for a host of secular reasons, has been enforced only against religious conduct, and has a history showing an intent to target religion.
15-946 Tucker v. Louisiana (1) Whether imposition of the death penalty upon a person convicted of murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; and (2) whether Louisiana's failure to require the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that death is the appropriate punishment violates the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
15-1027 Walker v. U.S. Whether one who regains his or her federal civil rights by operation of federal law has had his civil rights “restored” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20), which bars anyone who has been convicted of a felony from possessing a firearm, but further provides that “[a]ny conviction . . . for which a person . . . has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction,” and therefore may exercise the fundamental constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
15-1193 Johnson v. Carpenter (1) Whether a court must categorically deny a Rule 60(b)(6) motion premised on the change in decisional law produced by Martinez v. Ryan; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit's decision to deny even a Certificate of Appealability in this case should be summarily reversed.
15-8049 Buck v. Stephens Whether the Fifth Circuit imposed an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard that contravenes this Court's precedent and deepens two circuit splits when it denied petitioner a COA on his motion to reopen the judgment and obtain merits review of his claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for knowingly presenting an “expert” who testified that petitioner was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he is Black, where future dangerousness was both a prerequisite for a death sentence and the central issue at sentencing.
15-8366 Lynch v. Arizona (1) What is the proper appellate procedure to address a trial court's failure to conduct the third Batson v. Kentucky step; (2) whether the Arizona Supreme Court, where it has continuously refused Simmons v. South Carolina instructions by relying upon the availability of commutation, has decided this question in a manner that conflicts with Simmons; and (3) whether a defendant's Due Process right to a fair trial is secure when a prosecutor with a history of misconduct commits misconduct on several occasions through the defendant's trial.

Petitions for Conference of 09.28.2015

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
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. CVSG: 05/24/2016.

Petitions for Conference of 02.19.2016

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
15-649 Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corporation Whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a manner that violates the statutory priority scheme. CVSG: 05/23/2016.

Petitions for Conference of 05.26.2016

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
15-7939 Wimbley v. Alabama (1) Whether, under Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona, law enforcement officers are permitted to interrogate a defendant after he invokes his right to counsel, is placed in a jail cell that does not have adequate water and light, is held there without counsel for four days and then contacts officers to discuss the conditions of his confinement; and (2) whether this Court's decision in Hurst v. Florida invalidates a death sentence that is based on a judge's independent findings that aggravating circumstances existed and that they outweighed mitigating circumstances, rather than a jury verdict.
15-1286 Unite Here Local 54 v. Trump Entm't Resorts Whether, under § 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, a bankruptcy court may authorize a unionized debtor employer to abolish its employees’ pensions, health coverage and other benefits without complying with its bargaining obligations under the National Labor Relations Act, when no collective bargaining agreement exists.
15-1186 Rogers v. Chatman Whether petitioner was denied effective assistance of counsel where (1) the only issue at trial was whether petitioner is intellectually disabled; (2) petitioner’s IQ scores were within the range for intellectual disability with the Flynn effect, a well-established scientific principle demonstrating that aging norms cause IQ scores to rise for each year since the test was normed, but outside the range without it; and (3) petitioner’s counsel failed to explain the Flynn effect.
15-680 Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections (1) Whether the court below erred in holding that race cannot predominate even where it is the most important consideration in drawing a given district unless the use of race results in “actual conflict” with traditional districting criteria; (2) whether the court below erred by concluding that the admitted use of a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor to draw twelve separate House of Delegates districts did not amount to racial predominance and trigger strict scrutiny; (3) whether the court below erred in disregarding the admitted use of race in drawing district lines in favor of examining circumstantial evidence regarding the contours of the districts; (4) whether the court below erred in holding that racial goals must negate all other districting criteria in order for race to predominate; and (5) whether the court below erred in concluding that the General Assembly's predominant use of race in drawing House District 75 was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.

Petitions for Conference of 06.02.2016

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
15-1192 U.S. v. Lost Tree Village Corp. (1) Whether, in determining the “parcel whole” for purposes of regulatory-takings analysis under the Just Compensation Clause, the court of appeals erred by severing regulated wetlands from unregulated, contiguous uplands under common ownership solely because respondent had no expectation of developing those wetlands at the time it developed the rest of the residential community; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the absence of reasonable, investment-backed expectations could not be considered in determining whether the denial of the permit resulted in a categorical regulatory taking of the residual wetlands tract under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council.
15-1164 Cain v. Brumfield (1) Whether, in mental retardation evidentiary hearings, the federal district court committed clear error (a) in refusing to allow the state to introduce the trial court record, (b) in limiting the state’s presentation of evidence, (c) in failing to consider the facts of the crime as provided for in State v. Dunn III, (d) in failing to consider historical school records containing six mental health assessments/testing that did not diagnose mental retardation, and (e) in assessing credibility of witnesses; and (2) whether the federal appellate court erred in failing to conduct an independent review as to whether Brumfield proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is mentally retarded based on the voluminous documentary evidence and the entirety of the record including the state court record.
15-1103 Scholz v. Delp Whether the First Amendment creates a categorical presumption that statements about a person's motive in committing suicide are matters of “opinion” rather than “fact” and thus cannot be the basis of a defamation action.
15-1101 Google v. Pulaski & Middleman, LLC (1) Whether individual damage calculations alone can overwhelm questions common to the class, precluding certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3); and (2) whether plaintiffs may use a formula that relies on a uniform measure of harm derived from the average experience of all class members as common proof of damages.
15-1088 Republic of Ecuador v. Chevron Corp. Whether the D.C. Circuit erred in holding that there is Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) jurisdiction over this suit to confirm an arbitral award, upon concluding that: (1) federal courts may not independently determine whether there is an agreement to arbitrate, but rather must defer to foreign arbitrators on this core FSIA jurisdictional fact; and (2) the party invoking federal court jurisdiction bears only a burden of production as to the facts supporting jurisdiction, while the foreign state bears the ultimate burden of persuasion as to the absence of those facts.
15-1085 WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. (1) Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that damages based on a patentee’s so-called “foreign lost profits” are categorically unavailable in cases of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f); and (2) whether the Court should hold this petition for Halo and Stryker.
15-1084 Daniels v. U.S. Whether a district court may bar a criminal defendant from attending his own trial without finding that his conduct threatens the court's ability to conduct the trial.
15-1081 Target Corp. v. Guvenoz Whether the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court, which permits personal-injury plaintiffs in Illinois to proceed with the very “stop-selling” theory of liability this Court rejected as “incompatible with our pre-emption jurisprudence” in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, should be summarily reversed.
15-1078 GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Allied Services Division Welfare Fund (1) Whether a third-party payor (TPP) states a plausible RICO injury by alleging that a manufacturer’s failure to disclose risk information inflated the price of a medication; (2a) whether the independent decisions of prescribing doctors break the causal chain under RICO where a TPP alleges that it paid more because a manufacturer’s misrepresentations caused doctors to write more prescriptions for a medication; and (2b) whether a TPP must allege specific facts tying an alleged fraud to its own decision to cover a drug under its prescription plan in order to properly plead factual causation.

Petitions for Conference of 06.09.2016

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
15-1251 National Labor Relations Board v. SW General Whether the precondition in 5 U.S.C. 3345(b)(1) on service in an acting capacity by a person nominated by the President to fill the office on a permanent basis, requiring that a person who is nominated to fill a vacant office that is subject to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act may not perform the office’s functions and duties in an acting capacity unless the person served as first assistant to the vacant office for at least 90 days in the year preceding the vacancy, applies only to first assistants who take office under subsection (a)(1) of 5 U.S.C. 3345, or whether it also limits acting service by officials who assume acting responsibilities under subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3).
15-1204 Jennings v. Rodriguez (1) Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months; (2) whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months; and (3) whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, whether the length of the alien’s detention must be weighed in favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.
15-1152 Michigan v. EPA Whether, when an agency promulgates a rule without any statutory authority, a reviewing court may leave the unlawful rule in place.
15-1064 Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Stranburg Whether, when a utility provider exercises a state-law right to expressly pass on a utility tax to a federally recognized Indian tribe for utility services delivered to the tribe’s reservations and the tribe is therefore legally obligated to pay the tax, the tax is an impermissible direct tax on the tribe.
15-1063 Texas v. Villarreal Whether a warrantless blood draw conducted pursuant to the implied consent / mandatory draw provisions in the Texas Transportation Code from an individual arrested for his third DWI, violates the Fourth Amendment.

Petitions Not Set for Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
15-1373 SSC Mystic Operating Company, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board (1) Whether the National Labor Relation Board's interpretation of § 153(b), which authorizes the Board to delegate certain statutory powers to its regional directors, is entitled to any level of judicial deference; and (2) whether the Board's interpretation of § 153(b), that regional directors can exercise the statutory powers delegated to them by the Board regardless of whether the Board has a quorum, should be upheld.
15-1372 Bailey v. Feltmann Whether a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for denial of medical care made by an arrestee is cognizable under the Fourth Amendment and the objective reasonableness standard applies or is cognizable under the Fourteenth Amendment and the deliberate indifference standard applies.
15-1363 Hasty v. Turkmen (1) Whether, as the Second Circuit held, the judicially implied cause of action for damages against individual officials recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, extends to detentions of foreign nationals after the September 11 attacks; (2) whether qualified immunity was property denied, notwithstanding the specific circumstances confronted by petitioners—including the FBI's terrorism designations for respondents—because the Constitution “clearly” prohibits any “condition of pretrial detention not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective,” or imposed “because of . . . race, ethnicity, religion, and/or national origin;” and (3) whether the allegations against Hasty and Sherman (the Warden and Associate Warden at the Metropolitan Detention Center)—such as the assertion that they “knew” the FBI's terrorism designations for respondents were wrong but imposed otherwise mandatory confinement conditions because they had discriminatory intent—are sufficiently plausible to state a claim under Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
15-1359 Ashcroft v. Turkmen (1) Whether the judicially inferred damages remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, should be extended to the novel context of this case, which seeks to hold the former Attorney General and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) personally liable for policy decisions made about national-security and immigration in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; and (2) whether the former Attorney General and FBI Director are entitled to qualified immunity for their alleged role in the treatment of respondents, because it was not clearly established that aliens legitimately arrested during the September 11 investigation could not be held in restrictive conditions until the FBI confirmed that they had no connections with terrorism; and (3) whether respondents' allegations that the Attorney General and FBI Director personally condoned the implementation of facially constitutional policies because of an invidious animus against Arabs and Muslims are plausible, as required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in light of the obvious alternative explanation—identified by the Court in Iqbal—that their actions were motivated by a concern that, absent fuller investigation, the government would unwittingly permit a dangerous individual to leave the United States.
15-1358 Ziglar v. Turkmen (1) Whether the Court of Appeals, in finding that Respondents' Fifth Amendment claims did not arise in a “new context” for purposes of implying a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, erred by defining “context” at too high a level of generality where Respondents challenge the actions taken in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001regarding the detention of persons illegally in the United States whom the FBI had arrested in connection with its investigation of the September 11 attacks, thereby implicating concerns regarding national security, immigration, and the separation of powers; and (2) whether the Court of Appeals, in denying qualified immunity to Petitioner Ziglar erred: (A) by failing to focus on the specific context of the case to determine whether the violative nature of Mr. Ziglar's specific conduct was at the time clearly established, instead defining the “established law” at the high level of generality that this Court has warned against; and (B) by finding that even though the applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) to the actions of federal officials like Petitioner Ziglar was not clearly established at the time in question, Respondents nevertheless could maintain a § 1985(3) claim against him so long as his conduct violated some other clearly established law; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Respondents' Fourth Amended Complaint met the pleading requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal , and related cases, because that complaint relied on allegations of hypothetical possibilities, conclusional assumptions, and unsupported insinuations of discriminatory intent that, at best, are merely consistent with Petitioner Ziglar's liability, but fall short of stating plausible claims.
15-1346 GEICO General Insurance Co. v. Calderon (1) Whether insurance fraud investigators are covered by the administrative exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime-pay requirement, 29 U.S.C. § 213(a), as the Sixth Circuit has held in conflict with the Fourth Circuit's judgment below; and (2) whether an exemption to the Fair Labor Standard Act's overtime-pay requirement must be narrowly construed and established by clear-and-convincing evidence, as the Fourth Circuit held, in conflict with fundamental principles of statutory construction and the decisions of every other court of appeals.
15-1345 Ali v. Warfaa Whether a foreign official's common-law immunity for acts performed on behalf of a foreign state is abrogated by plaintiff's allegations that those official acts violated jus cogens norms of international law.
15-1336 Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP v. Garrido (1) Whether the California Court of Appeal erred by holding, in direct conflict with DirectTV v. Imburgia, that the parties' agreement to apply the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to govern their arbitration contract was unenforceable because the FAA's transportation worker exemption applied; and (2) whether the California Court of Appeal erred by holding, in direct conflict with the Second, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits, that an employee was exempt from the FAA as a “transportation worker” even though he was not employed in the transportation industry.
15-1330 MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Company (1) Whether inter partes review (IPR) violates Article III of the Constitution; and (2) whether IPR violates the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution.
15-1317 Vanessa G. v. Tennessee Dep’t of Children’s Services Whether the right to counsel in a termination of parental rights proceeding includes the right to the effective assistance of counsel.
15-1309 PharMerica Corp. v. U.S. ex rel. Gadbois Whether, as the Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held, courts must apply the first-to-file bar as of the time the follow-on case is filed and dismiss a copycat qui tam action brought when a related action is pending; or whether, as the First Circuit held, subsequent events can cure the first-to-file defect, such that a follow-on case may avoid the statutory bar simply by remaining on the docket until the first-filed action inevitably ends.
15-1305 BeavEx Inc. v. Costello Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts generally-applicable state laws that force motor carriers to treat and pay all drivers as “employees” rather than as independent contractors.
15-1292 Caroni v. U.S. (1) Whether a trial court’s error in directing a verdict on venue can be deemed harmless when that element was genuinely contested by the defendant; and (2) whether the general business expenditures of a company that is engaged in illegal activity, but is not wholly illegitimate, satisfy the “promotion” prong of the money laundering statute.
15-1257 Akbar v. U.S. Whether it violates the constitutional separation-of-powers or exceeds statutory authority for the President, rather than Congress, to prescribe the aggravating-factor elements that permit a court-martial to impose a death sentence on a member of the armed forces.
15-1248 McLane Co. v. EEOC (1) Whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, which only the Ninth Circuit does, or should be reviewed deferentially, which eight other circuits do, consistent with this Court’s precedents concerning the choice of standards of review; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision to enforce an EEOC subpoena, depending upon a notion of relevance so broad that it effectively abrogates statutory limits on the EEOC‘s investigative powers, conflicts with EEOC v. Shell Oil and the holdings of at least three other circuits.
15-1190 Hebert v. U.S. (1) Whether petitioner’s 92-year sentence for nonviolent fraud offenses causing $16,000 in loss is unconstitutional, where, as the government and court of appeals each acknowledged below, the sentence would be substantively unreasonable, and therefore unlawful, but for the district judge’s contested murder finding; and (2) whether a criminal defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a jury place any constraints on an appellate court’s ability to use judicial-found facts as the basis to affirm the substantive reasonableness, and therefore the lawfulness, of the defendant’s sentence, a question this Court acknowledged but postponed answering in Rita v. United States.
15-1177 Kergil v. U.S. Whether, in light of this Court’s decisions in McNally v. United States and Skilling v. United States, the Second Circuit’s recognition of an intangible “right to control property” is a cognizable property right under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes.
15-1167 O’Bannon v. NCAA (1) Whether, in determining an appropriate remedy for a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the “Rule of Reason,” a court may treat the restraint itself – here, the agreement among the NCAA and its members prohibiting college athlete compensation, or what the NCAA calls “amateurism” – as a legitimate procompetitive effect: and (2) whether, after finding a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the Rule of Reason, a court is restricted to awarding relief that the plaintiff proves is “virtually as effective” as the restraint in serving its alleged purposes, “without significantly increased cost.”
15-1140 Binday v. U.S. Whether a defendant may be convicted of federal criminal fraud when the purported victim has suffered no loss of tangible property, but has instead only been deprived of the intangible “right to control” with whom it does business.
15-961 Visa v. Osborn Whether allegations that members of a business association agreed to adhere to the association’s rules and possess governance rights in the association, without more, are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, as the court of appeals held below, or are insufficient, as the Third, Fourth, and Ninth Circuits have held.
15-955 Cooper v. Lee Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) violates Article III of the United States Constitution, to the extent that it empowers an executive agency tribunal to assert judicial power canceling private property rights amongst private parties embroiled in a private federal dispute of a type known in the common law courts of 1789, rather than merely issue an advisory opinion as an adjunct to a trial court.
15-698 Helmerich & Payne Int'l v. Venezuela (1) Whether, under the third clause of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, a breach-of-contract action is “based … upon” any act necessary to establish an element of the claim, including acts of contract formation or performance, or solely those acts that breached the contract; and (2) whether, under Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, a breaching party’s failure to make contractually required payments in the United States causes a “direct effect” in the United States triggering the commercial activity exception where the parties’ expectations and course of dealing have established the United States as the place of payment, or only where payment in the United States is unconditionally required by contract. CVSG: 05/24/2016.
15-497 Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools Whether the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 commands exhaustion in a suit, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, that seeks damages – a remedy that is not available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. CVSG: 05/20/2016.
15-486 Ivy v. Morath Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in deciding that the relationship between public and private actors does not invoke dual obligations to accommodate disabilities in any context other than an express contractual relationship between a public entity and its private vendor. CVSG: 05/20/2016.
15-423 Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l (1) Whether, for purposes of determining if a plaintiff has pleaded that a foreign state has taken property “in violation of international law,” the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) recognizes a discrimination exception to the domestic-takings rule, which holds that a foreign sovereign’s taking of the property of its own national is not a violation of international law; (2) whether, for purposes of determining if a plaintiff has pleaded that “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” the FSIA allows a shareholder to claim property rights in the assets of a still-existing corporation; and (3) whether the pleading standard for alleging that a case falls within the FSIA’s expropriation exception is more demanding than the standard for pleading jurisdiction under the federal-question statute, which allows a jurisdictional dismissal only if the federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. CVSG: 05/24/2016.
14-1206 Odhiambo v. Republic of Kenya (1) Whether the courts, perpetuating a four-decade decisional gap over the heart of the Foreign Services Immunities Act, may decline jurisdiction without actually deciding that given by Congress, despite its purpose to provide court access and their unflagging obligation to exercise jurisdiction given, and (2) whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, under any construction, confers jurisdiction over a foreign state that directs its contract party and obligations to the United States, and carries on a six-year course of dealing, causing financial loss here, which the dissent below "readily" found created a "genuine nexus." CVSG: 05/24/2016.
14-1055 Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corporation (1) Whether the phrase "to sue and be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal" in Fannie Mae's charter confers original jurisdiction over every case brought by or against Fannie Mae to the federal courts; and (2) whether the Court's decision in American National Red Cross v. S.G. should be reversed. CVSG: 05/23/2016.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
15-1045 Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. U.S. ex rel. Oberg Whether the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, a statewide agency located in the capital and unambiguously treated as an arm of the state by Pennsylvania, is an arm of Pennsylvania for purposes of federal law, or is instead an “independent political subdivision” as determined by the Fourth Circuit and its multifactor balancing test.
15-1044 Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency v. Pele Whether the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, a statewide agency located in the capital and unambiguously treated as an arm of the state by Pennsylvania, is an arm of Pennsylvania for purposes of federal law, or is instead an “independent political subdivision” as determined by the Fourth Circuit and its multifactor balancing test.
15-830 Belize v. Belize Social Development Ltd. (1) Whether, under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, as applied to the New York Convention by Article III, a foreign forum is per se inadequate because specific assets in the United States cannot be attached by a foreign court, as the D.C. Circuit has held, or whether it is adequate if it has jurisdiction and some attachable assets, as the Second Circuit held; and (2) whether, under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention, the public policy in favor of arbitration yields where confirmation of an arbitral award would be contrary to countervailing public policies, such as those grounded in constitutional separation of powers principles, combating government corruption and/or international comity.
15-610 Midland Funding, LLC v. Madden Whether the National Bank Act, which preempts state usury laws regulating the interest a national bank may charge on a loan, continues to have preemptive effect after the national bank has sold or otherwise assigned the loan to another entity.
15-118 Hernández v. Mesa (1) Whether a formalist or functionalist analysis governs the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unjustified deadly force, as applied to a cross-border shooting of an unarmed Mexican citizen in an enclosed area controlled by the United States; and (2) whether qualified immunity may be granted or denied based on facts – such as the victim’s legal status – unknown to the officer at the time of the incident. CVSG: 03/01/2016.
14-1538 Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation (1) Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a single entity can "actively induce" itself to infringe a patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales.

Petitions Held for Another Conference


Term Snapshot