| N/A |
11-901 |
Pipefitters Local 636 Insurance Fund v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan |
(1) Whether a district court is precluded from certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when, at the time of the certification decision, the legal question common to the class has already been resolved; and (2) whether, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), a court may consider, as a reason to deny class certification, the financial or other public policy consequences that may arise if the class members’ claims are meritorious and litigated on a class basis. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-891 |
County of Los Angeles v. Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs |
(1) Whether, under the Constitution, a public entity has the right to define the terms of a law enforcement officer’s employment so that when the officer is charged with a felony, the entity may suspend the officer without pay pending resolution of the criminal charge; and (2) whether, if a public entity suspends a law enforcement officer based on a pending felony charge and the officer later disproves the allegations underlying the charge, the Constitution requires the public entity to pay backpay for the suspension, even though terms of the officer’s employment do not entitle the officer to such pay? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-890 |
Bright v. Holder |
(1) Whether a noncitizen who fails to respond to an agency order to report for removal is a “fugitive” for purposes of applying the “fugitive disentitlement” doctrine where the petitioner has not absconded and his address is known to the court and the government; (2) whether a petitioner is a “fugitive” for purposes of applying the “fugitive disentitlement” doctrine even if he has been detained and is in government custody; and (3) whether the doctrine is a per se jurisdictional bar to appellate review, or merely authorizes a court to exercise its discretion and weigh the equities in a particular case. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-889 |
Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann |
(1) Whether Congress’s approval of an interstate water compact that grants the contracting states “equal rights” to certain surface water and – using language present in almost all such compacts— provides that the compact shall not “be deemed . . . to interfere” with each state’s “appropriation, use, and control of water . . . not inconsistent with its obligations under this Compact,” manifests unmistakably clear congressional consent to state laws that expressly burden interstate commerce in water; and (2) whether a provision of a congressionally approved multi-state compact that is designed to ensure an equal share of water among the contracting states preempts protectionist state laws that obstruct other states from accessing the water to which they are entitled by the compact. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-881 |
Merrifield v. County Commissioners for Santa Fe |
Whether a public employee discharged in retaliation
for consulting with a private attorney may establish
a violation of his constitutional right of association
only if his association with the attorney involved
a matter of public concern. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-872 |
New York v. Wingate |
(1) Whether, under the Sixth Amendment, a court may allow a defendant to proceed pro se at a suppression hearing where the defendant unequivocally expresses his desire to proceed without counsel, the trial court warns him of the likelihood of a conviction and jail sentence, and the record otherwise demonstrates that the defendant’s decision is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; and (2) whether a state court may afford more protection to a defendant’s right to counsel at a suppression hearing than the Sixth Amendment requires when doing so infringes the defendant’s specifically invoked Sixth Amendment right to self-representation? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-864 |
Comcast v. Behrend |
Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving “merits arguments” that bear on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23’s prerequisites for certification, including whether purportedly common issues predominate over individual ones under Rule 23(b)(3). |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-853 |
Denney v. Griffin |
When the state failed to disclose exculpatory
evidence, can a court find that the defendant’s due
process rights were violated at the time of trial
because of that omission when the basis for
concluding that the omission caused prejudice
included not just the evidence not disclosed, but also
other evidence that did not even come into existence
until after trial? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-852 |
City of Hugo, Oklahoma v. Buchannan |
Whether a political subdivision has standing, in a suit against its parent state, to press (i) exclusively statutory claims; (ii) exclusively “structural” claims (constitutional or statutory); or (iii) no claim at all, so that petitioners may challenge (or not) a state law on the ground that it exceeds the state’s power under the dormant Commerce Clause. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-840 |
John Doe AP v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of St. Louis |
Whether the First Amendment shields religious
organizations from accountability for negligence and
negligent supervision and retention of their employees
who sexually abuse children. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-834 |
Baca v. Starr |
(1) Whether, under Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
a county sheriff or other high-level supervisory official may be held liable for an Eighth Amendment violation, stemming from an assault on a prisoner perpetrated by jail inmates and guards, if the plaintiff does not allege facts showing that the sheriff actually knew of, yet failed to respond to, the particular risk of assault the plaintiff faced, and that the sheriff ’s failure to act was the cause of the plaintiff ’s injury; and (2) whether a complaint seeking to hold a high-level supervisory official liable for the acts of subordinate officials, that alleges unrelated incidents of violence over several years in a 20,000-inmate jail system, satisfies Iqbal’s plausibility requirement? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-833 |
Johnson v. U.S. |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1958(a), which makes it a crime to travel in or use a facility in interstate or foreign commerce “with intent that a murder be committed” for money or something of pecuniary value, or to conspire to do so, requires that the interstate activity be done for the purpose of facilitating or making easier the commission of the underlying crime of murder? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-829 |
King v. Kansas Judicial Watch |
Whether, when a plaintiff obtains a preliminary injunction but the case is mooted prior to resolution of the plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, the plaintiff is a “prevailing party” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b)? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-820 |
Chaidez v. U.S. |
Whether the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky
, holding that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation, applies to persons whose convictions became final before its announcement. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-817 |
Florida v. Harris |
Whether an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-798 |
American Trucking Associations v. City of Los Angeles |
(1) Whether 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1), which provides that “a State [or] political subdivision . . . may not enact or enforce a law, regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier . . . with respect to the transportation of property,” contains an unexpressed “market participant” exception and permits a municipal governmental entity to take action that conflicts with the express preemption clause, occurs in a market in which the municipal entity does not participate, and is unconnected with any interest in the efficient procurement of services; (2) whether a required concession agreement setting out various conditions a motor carrier must meet to serve a particular port imposes any requirements that are “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier” for the purposes of preemption under Section 14501(c)(1); and (3) whether permitting a municipal governmental entity to bar federally licensed motor carriers from access to a port operates as a partial suspension of the motor carriers’ federal registration, in violation of Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines Inc.
|
N/A |
| N/A |
11-786 |
Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling |
(1) Whether a state agency can ban the objective
use of all materials it deems “religious” from public
schools (including charter schools) and universities
without First Amendment scrutiny. (2) Whether the state has either a valid
educational interest or a mandate from the Establishment Clause to prohibit the objective use of all religious materials in a secular curriculum. (3) Whether “political subdivisions” are barred per se from suing their states in federal court regardless
of their degree of independence or type of claim. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-782 |
Marina Point Development Co. v. Center for Biological Diversity |
Whether courts can properly award attorney’s fees and costs under fee-shifting statutes that limit such awards to “appropriate” circumstances when, as here, the matter becomes moot on appeal, the judgment of this district court is vacated and undone, and the plaintiff ultimately accomplishes nothing? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-775 |
Mann v. California |
Whether certiorari should be granted to
examine and overrule California’s rule
that the Sixth Amendment Right to a
speedy trial is never applied to a
case in which the defendant is charged
by complaint and arrested and
arraigned on the complaint but always
requires that he be either indicted or
held to answer on an information. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-770 |
Bailey v. U.S. |
Whether, pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, police officers may detain an individual
incident to the execution of a search warrant when the
individual has left the immediate vicinity of the premises
before the warrant is executed. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-756 |
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Campbell |
Whether the imposition of liability based on earlier litigation without any assurance that the earlier litigation actually decided the precluded issue violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-755 |
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Hall |
Whether the imposition of liability based on earlier litigation without any assurance that the earlier litigation actually decided the precluded issue violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-754 |
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Martin |
Whether the imposition of liability based on earlier litigation without any assurance that the earlier litigation actually decided the precluded issue violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-752 |
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Gray |
Whether the imposition of liability based on earlier litigation without any assurance that the earlier litigation actually decided the precluded issue violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-748 |
Signature Pharmacy v. Wright |
(1) Whether search warrants for a business that shares multi-occupancy buildings with others violate the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment where the warrants fail to identify the offices, floors or areas to be searched or the specific items to be seized, despite the officer’s knowledge of the business’s location within the buildings and the limited portion of the business under investigation; and (2) whether the Eleventh Circuit properly ruled that a lead officer with actual knowledge of a business’s operations and location within multi-occupancy buildings is entitled to qualified immunity where the officer prepared and obtained search warrants authorizing the unfettered search of the entire buildings and seizure of all business records and items, including those unconnected to the investigation. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-744 |
Alpha Delta Chi-Delta Chapter v. Reed |
(1) Whether a university violates the free speech and free association rights of religious student organizations by denying them access to a speech forum because they require their members and leaders to agree with the groups’ religious beliefs, while at the same time granting access to nonreligious groups that require their members and leaders to agree with the groups’ nonreligious beliefs; and (2) whether a university violates the Free Exercise Clause by expressly targeting religious student groups for exclusion from a student organization speech forum and by burdening their religious practice pursuant to a policy that is neither neutral nor generally applicable. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-741 |
Philip Morris USA v. Campbell |
Whether the Due Process Clause prohibits the
use of issue preclusion to establish elements of a
plaintiff’s claims where it cannot be shown that the
issues being given preclusive effect were actually decided
in a prior proceeding. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-740 |
Zurn Pex v. Cox |
When a party proffers expert testimony in support
of or in opposition to a motion for class certification,
may the district court rely on the testimony in
ruling on the motion without conducting a full and
conclusive examination of its admissibility under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and this Court’s decision
in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-708 |
Liu v. Pearson Education |
Whether the Copyright Act’s first-sale doctrine,
as codified in 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) – under which the
owner of any particular copy “lawfully made under
this title” may resell that copy without the authority
of the copyright holder – applies to copies lawfully
manufactured abroad by the holder of U.S. copyright,
or whether the redistribution of such copies remains
under the U.S. copyright holder’s perpetual control
simply because those copies were manufactured
abroad. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-704 |
Perfect 10 v. Google |
Whether this Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. overrule established precedent
in virtually every circuit, that a showing of likelihood of
success on the merits in a copyright infringement claim
raises a presumption of irreparable harm for purposes of
obtaining a preliminary injunction? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-702 |
Moncrieffe v. Holder |
Whether a conviction under a provision of state law that encompasses but is not limited to the distribution of a small amount of marijuana without remuneration constitutes an aggravated felony, notwithstanding that the record of conviction does not establish that the alien was convicted of conduct that would constitute a federal felony. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-698 |
National Association of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission |
Whether the Third Circuit correctly upheld and retained future jurisdiction over media broadcast ownership rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, where the D.C. Circuit previously held that the very local television ownership rule approved by the Third Circuit was arbitrary and capricious and not necessary in the public interest. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-697 |
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons |
How do Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the copyright’s owner, and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy “lawfully made under this title” to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner’s permission, apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-696 |
Tribune Company v. Federal Communcations Commission |
(1) Whether the scarcity doctrine of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
, should be overruled, thereby invalidating the Federal Communications Commission’s media ownership rules; and (2) whether the FCC’s continued restriction on the cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast stations in the same market violates the First and Fifth Amendments because it singles out newspapers among all forms of mass communication for unequal treatment. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-691 |
Media General Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission |
Whether this Court should reconsider its decision
in FCC v. National Citizen Committee for Broadcasting
, that broadcast
ownership restrictions are subject only to rational basis
review. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-677 |
Moore v. Guerrero |
(1) Whether, if a magistrate receives a sworn complaint, finds probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, but issues a criminal summons in lieu of an arrest warrant, the Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from serving the summons on the accused in the same manner as a warrant; and, if so, (2) whether such law was clearly established in November 2007, given that no federal court had ever issued such a ruling, and several state laws specifically allow criminal summonses to be served in the same manner as warrants; and, (3) if such law was not clearly established, whether petitioner-defendant Moore is entitled to qualified immunity from suits arising out of his service of a criminal summons. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-674 |
Skilling v. U.S. |
(1) Whether Neder v. United States permits a court conducting a
harmless-error analysis in the context of an “alternative
theory” case to consider only the strength of
the government’s case on the legally valid theory,
without regard to whether the defendant contested
that theory enough to create a factual dispute that
rationally could have been resolved in the defendant’s
favor; and (2) whether a court conducting a harmless-error
analysis in the context of an “alternative theory”
case may categorically exclude the defendant’s testimony
in his own defense on the legally valid theory. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-652 |
Sid-Mar’s Restaurant & Lounge v. U.S. |
Whether an exception to
the prior exclusive jurisdiction rule exists where
the United States brings a later-filed federal action
seeking title to property already within the jurisdiction
of a state court. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-613 |
County of Erie v. Cash |
Does imposing municipal liability for a single incident
of sexual assault on an inmate by a jail guard contravene
the rigorous deliberate indifference and pattern and
practice requirements of Connick v. Thompson (2011), Board of County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown (1997), and Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978)? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-604 |
EM Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina |
Section 1610 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq., sets forth the circumstances in which property of a foreign state or its agency or instrumentality “shall not be immune” from prejudgment attachment or execution in satisfaction of a judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 1610. Section 1611 restores immunity to property “of a foreign central bank or monetary authority held for its own account, unless such bank or authority, or its parent government, has explicitly waived its immunity.” Id. § 1611(b)(1).
In First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983) ( “Bancec”), this Court held that in certain circumstances of injustice or control, the separate juridical status of a foreign state's agency or instrumentality should be disregarded. Id. at 629. In such cases, the agency or instrumentality should be treated as the alter ego of the foreign state, and “one may be held liable for the actions of the other.” Id.
When a central bank has been adjudicated under this Court’s decision in First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba, to be the alter ego of a foreign state that has waived immunity from attachment and execution, does Section 1611(b)(1) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act immunize the assets held in the name of that bank? (Sotomayor, J., recused.)
|
1-17-2012 |
| N/A |
11-597 |
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. U.S. |
Whether government actions that impose
recurring flood invasions must continue
permanently to take property within the
meaning of the Takings Clause. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-591 |
Slough v. U.S. |
When the government has compelled individuals to make potentially incriminating statements, does prosecutors’ subsequent use of those statements in deciding to indict those individuals violate the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause and the use immunity principles of Kastigar v. United States (1972)? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-555 |
City of Oakland, California v. Desert Outdoor Advertising |
(1) Whether a court can refuse to enforce a sister state’s judgment because it rests on a penal cause of action or whether it must enforce that judgment; and (2) if a court may decline enforcement consistent with full faith and credit, whether awards for attorney’s fees and costs, equitable disgorgement, and coercive per diem and statutory liquidated damages are penal for purposes of the exception. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-499 |
Ryan v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, to have preserved a claim that jury instructions directed and produced a conviction for noncriminal conduct, must a petitioner under 18 U.S.C. § 2255 have argued for the precise standard this Court articulated when it held this conduct noncriminal in a later case; (2) whether a federal court may disregard the government’s express acknowledgment that a petitioner preserved a claim that instructions directed and produced his conviction for noncriminal conduct; and (3) whether, when a jury was directed to convict a § 2255 petitioner of noncriminal conduct, he must show (a) that the evidence would have been insufficient to support his conviction under the appropriate standard; (b) that there is grave doubt whether the erroneous instructions had a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict; (c) that there is a reasonable likelihood that he was not convicted of a crime; or (d) that it is not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that he was convicted of a crime. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-460 |
Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council |
(1) Whether “navigable waters of the United States”
include only “naturally occurring” bodies of water
so that construction of engineered channels or
other man-made improvements to a river as part
of municipal flood and storm control renders the
improved portion no longer a “navigable water”
under the Clean Water Act? (2) When water flows from one portion of a river that
is navigable water of the United States, through
a concrete channel or other engineered improvement
in the river constructed for flood and
stormwater control as part of a municipal separate
storm sewer system, into a lower portion of
the same river, can there be a “discharge” from
an “outfall” under the Clean Water Act, notwithstanding
this Court’s holding in South Florida
Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of
Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 105 (2004), that transfer of
water within a single body of water cannot constitute
a “discharge” for purposes of the Act? |
1-17-2012 |
| N/A |
11-415 |
Ramirez-Villalpando v. Holder |
Whether an abstract of judgment, which is prepared
by a court clerk for sentencing purposes after a defendant’s
guilty plea and without the defendant’s input, qualifi es as
a conclusive record made or used in adjudicating guilt
that may be relied upon to determine whether a prior
conviction qualifi es as an aggravated felony under Shepard v. United States(2005). |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-347 |
Georgia-Pacific West v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center |
Whether the Ninth Circuit should have deferred to EPA’s longstanding position that channeled runoff from forest roads does not require a permit, and erred when it mandated that EPA regulate such runoff as industrial stormwater subject to NPDES. (Breyer, J., recused.) |
12.12.2011 |
| N/A |
11-343 |
Segal v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the intent to defraud, under the mail and wire fraud statutes, requires an intent to cause harm; (2) whether mail and wire fraud may be premised on misstatements to parties other than the alleged victims of the fraud, without evidence that the victims knew of the misstatements or would have found them material; and (3) whether the breach of a fiduciary or legal duty imposed by state law can form the basis for a federal mail or wire fraud prosecution. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-338 |
Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center |
(1) Whether a citizen may bypass judicial review of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting rule under 33 U.S.C. § 1369, and may instead challenge the validity of the rule in a citizen suit to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA); and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that stormwater from logging roads is industrial stormwater under the rules of the CWA and the Environmental Protection Agency, even though EPA has determined that it is not industrial stormwater? (Breyer, J. recused) |
12.12.2011 |
| N/A |
11-336 |
Corboy v. Louie |
(1) Whether petitioners have standing to seek a refund of their own taxes; and (2) whether the Equal Protection Clause precludes a state or municipality from creating tax exemptions that are available only to members of a certain race. |
12.12.2011 |
| N/A |
11-83 |
Arctic Slope Native Association, Ltd. v. Sebelius |
Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a government contractor which has fully performed its end of the bargain has no remedy when a government agency overcommits itself to other projects and, as a result, does not have enough money left in its annual appropriation to pay the contractor. |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-79 |
Garcia v. Holder |
Whether a state conviction for possession of
unspecified quantity of marijuana categorically
constitutes a felony conviction under federal law (and therefore an “aggravated felony” under federal
immigration law), even if the offense could fall within the federal misdemeanor exception for low-level drug offenses? |
N/A |
| N/A |
11-42 |
Childers v. Floyd |
(1) Whether a state court has "adjudicated
on the merits" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) a properly preserved federal constitutional claim when the state court has rendered an extensive, reasoned decision deciding the issue solely on state law grounds and has failed to mention or address the federal constitutional issue; and (2) whether Olden v. Kentucky, Delaware v. Van Arsdall, and Davis v. Alaska permit a trial court to preclude cross-examination into the bias of a key witness on the ground that the trial court has allowed some cross-examination into bias. |
N/A |
| N/A |
10-1555 |
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association v. Goldstene |
(1) Whether the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause prohibit California's extraterritorial exercise of its police powers to require the use of specified low-sulfur fuels on foreign- and U.S.-flagged vessels engaged in foreign and interstate commerce while these ships are on the high seas; (2) Whether, by establishing the measure of California's seaward boundary at three geographical miles distant from its coast line, the Submerged Lands Act preempts California's regulations that require foreign- and U.S.-flagged vessels engaged in international and interstate commerce to use specified low-sulfur fuels while those ships are navigating outside of the state's three-mile seaward territorial boundary so established. |
10/03/2011 |
| N/A |
10-1545 |
Demiraj v. Holder |
Whether, for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, persecution in retaliation for the acts of a family member constitutes persecution on account of . . . membership in a particular social group. |
N/A |
| N/A |
10-1377 |
Cook v. Rockwell Int'l Corp. |
(1) Whether state substantive law controls the standard of compensable harm in suits under the Price-Anderson Act, or whether the Act instead imposes a federal standard; and (2) whether, if a federal standard applies, a property owner whose land has been contaminated by radioactive plutonium, resulting in lost property value, must show some physical injury to the property beyond the contamination itself in order to recover for damage to property. |
10/03/2011 |
| N/A |
10-1322 |
DirecTV v. Levin |
(1) Whether, in a Commerce Clause challenge to a state statute, courts need not examine the effects of the statute if it can be characterized as distinguishing between two competitors based upon their different methods of operation; and (2) whether courts need not examine the statute's effects because some of the beneficiaries of the discriminatory scheme are major interstate companies. |
10/03/2011 |
| N/A |
10-1139 |
Faculty Senate of Florida Int’l University v. State of Florida |
(1) Whether Florida's prohibition on the use of state or private funds by universities to support academic travel to Cuba and other disfavored nations is consistent with the Court's decision in Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council; and (2) whether state-enacted economic sanctions that restrict the use of both public and private funds are preempted by federal law. |
5/16/2011 |
| N/A |
10-947 |
Bank Melli Iran NY Rep. Office v. Weinstein |
1. Whether the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act overrides this Court'ss holding in First National City Bank v. Banco Para E1 Comercio Exterior de Cuba, 462 U.S. 611 (1983), and applicable treaty provisions by authorizing creditors of a foreign sovereign to execute against assets of the sovereign's juridically distinct instrumentalities. 2. Whether Congress violated Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995), by retroactively revising the parties bound by a judgment that was already final when the statute was enacted. |
6/13/2011 |
| N/A |
10-930 |
Ryan v. Gonzales |
Does 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2) “which provides that an indigent capital state inmate pursuing federal habeas relief "shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys" entitle a death row inmate to stay the federal habeas proceedings he initiated if he is not competent to assist counsel? |
5/31/2011 |
