Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

This week we are hosting a symposium on Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, which asks whether the Alien Tort Statute categorically forecloses corporate liability. Contributions are available at this link.

Petitions We’re Watching

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

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions Featured as Petition of the Day

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
16-8966 Al-Nashiri v. Trump (1) Whether the majority of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit erred in extending the doctrine associated with Schlessinger v. Councilman to trial by military commission, when doing so foreclosed a core habeas corpus claim; (2) whether the “extraordinary circumstances” exception to abstention is met when a capital defendant can show that trial will cause irreparable injuries that flow directly from respondents' own misconduct and, in particular, respondents' decision to subject him to years of “physical, psychological, and sexual torture”; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's uniquely restrictive standard, whereby any “open question” of law is categorically unreviewable via mandamus, is inconsistent with the All Writs Act.
16-8327 Lo v. U.S. Whether a district court may order an in personam forfeiture money judgment against an impecunious criminal defendant in the absence of a statute expressly authorizing such a form of punishment.
16-1524 M-I, LLC v. Syed (1) Whether an “informational injury” satisfies the article III standing requirement of real-world harm articulated in Spokeo v. Robins, where the plaintiff alleges at most a bare procedural violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681b; and (2) whether a bare procedural violation of a statute may be deemed “willful”—i.e. knowing and reckless—under Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Burr, where no risk of harm resulted from the alleged violation.
16-1519 Lagos v. U.S. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers costs for reimbursement under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act that were “neither required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim's own purposes and unprompted by any official government action.
16-1489 Arizona v. Martinez (1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in stretching the “overbreadth” test for facial unconstitutionality beyond the First Amendment context to strike down a bail restriction based on an application of the law not present in this case; and (2) whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in applying heightened scrutiny—one standard among five used in the lower courts—to strike down a state regulatory measure that denies bail if a judge, after a full adversarial hearing, finds clear proof that the arrestee raped a child.
16-1489 Arizona v. Martinez (1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in stretching the “overbreadth” test for facial unconstitutionality beyond the First Amendment context to strike down a bail restriction based on an application of the law not present in this case; and (2) whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in applying heightened scrutiny—one standard among five used in the lower courts—to strike down a state regulatory measure that denies bail if a judge, after a full adversarial hearing, finds clear proof that the arrestee raped a child.
16-1458 Hernandez v. Crespo Whether the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts a state law that dictates onerous terms and conditions which must be included in private arbitration agreements between physicians and patients, and invalidates all agreements that do not contain those terms and conditions.
16-1454 Ohio v. American Express Co. Whether, under the “rule of reason,” the Government's showing that American Express's anti-steering provisions stifle price competition on the merchant side of the credit card platform suffices to prove anti-competitive effects and thereby shifts the burden of establishing any procompetitive benefits from the provisions to American Express.
16-1450 U.S. v. Supreme Court of New Mexico Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in holding that New Mexico Rule of Professional Conduct 16-308(E)—which states that a prosecutor shall not “subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present clients unless the prosecutor reasonably believes,” among other things, that “the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution” and that “there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information”—may be applied to federal prosecutors serving subpoenas outside the grand jury context.
16-1450 U.S. v. Supreme Court of New Mexico Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in holding that New Mexico Rule of Professional Conduct 16-308(E)—which states that a prosecutor shall not “subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present clients unless the prosecutor reasonably believes,” among other things, that “the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution” and that “there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information”—may be applied to federal prosecutors serving subpoenas outside the grand jury context.
16-1406 Correctional Medical Services v. Glisson (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit's en banc majority opinion substantially departed from the Supreme Court's precedents established by Monell v. Department of Social Services by authorizing the imposition of corporate liability on a prison medical provider under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment without requiring any evidence of either culpability for deliberate indifference on the part of the provider, or any causal connection between the provider's alleged failure to implement the policy and the deprivation of federal rights; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the 7th Circuit's en banc majority opinion and its reliance on cases from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th and 3rd Circuits, which deviate from the requirements of all other federal appellate courts on the standard of municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Eighth Amendment, as established by Monell, justifies review by the Supreme Court to reconcile those authorities and clarify that standard.
16-1400 Wilson v. Department of the Navy (1) Whether the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act specifically provides authority to the Merit Systems Protection Board to inquire as to the existence of a discriminatory pretext in the revocation of an employee's security clearance; (2) whether, where the employee alleges the revocation of the security clearance is for a discriminatory pretext, the inquiry as to the existence of this discriminatory pretext improperly intrudes upon the “merits” of the Executive's security clearance determination; and (3) whether the Merit Systems Protection Board can then provide a remedy under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act to an employee whose security clearance was revoked in violation of the Act.
16-1398 Victaulic Co. v. U.S. (1) Whether a qui tam relator's complaint under the False Claims Act satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) by alleging nothing more than the opportunity for fraud, as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3d Circuit, or whether Rule 9(b) instead requires allegations of actual false claims, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 11th Circuits, or allegations of particular details of a scheme paired with reliable indicia of a false claim, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th, and D.C. Circuits; and (2) whether an “obligation” under the False Claims Act includes contingent duties that arise only after the exercise of discretion by government actors, so that an alleged failure to pay contingent marking duties is actionable as a knowing and improper avoidance of an obligation to pay the government.
16-1386 Vaughan v. Anderson Regional Medical Center Whether a plaintiff who has been retaliated against under 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act is able to seek compensatory and punitive damages as potential remedies for her claim.
16-1373 Brown v. Haas (1) Whether a twenty-five month delay, during which the government negligently forgot about the defendant and lost important evidence, gives rise to a presumption of prejudice under Doggett v. United States; and (2) whether, to establish actual prejudice, a defendant must merely show that his defense was impaired as a result of the delay (as the Supreme Court, along with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits have held), or whether he must effectively demonstrate a likelihood that the outcome at trial would have been different but for the delay (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, and 7th Circuits have held).
16-1365 Kibler v. Hall (1) Whether the courts below erred by balancing the trademark likelihood of confusion factors as an issue of law rather than a question of fact, contrary to the Supreme Court's analysis in Hana Financial Inc. v. Hana Bank and the majority of circuits; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred by affirming summary judgment against petitioner where it applied the wrong standard of review for balancing the trademark likelihood of confusion factors.
16-1363 Kelly v. Preap Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.
16-1362 Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro Whether service advisors at car dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A) from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime-pay requirements.
16-1348 Currier v. Virginia Whether a defendant who consents to severance of multiple charges into sequential trials loses his right under the double jeopardy clause to the issue-preclusive effect of an acquittal.
16-1344 Nosal v. U.S. Whether a person who obtains an account holder’s permission to access a computer nevertheless “accesses a computer without authorization” in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act when he acts without permission from the computer’s owner.
16-1337 Jones v. Virginia (1) Whether Virginia may refuse to give effect to Miller v. Alabama in state collateral review proceedings because, according to the Virginia Supreme Court, a sentence imposed in violation of the U.S. Constitution is not void but merely “voidable”; (2) whether the Virginia Supreme Court contradicted Miller and Montgomery v. Louisiana by holding that, before imposing a sentence of life without parole, a sentencer need not actually consider a juvenile offender’s youth and attendant characteristics so long as the sentencer had the opportunity to do so; and (3) whether Virginia may, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, limit the remedy for a sentence imposed in violation of Miller.
16-1330 Ivey v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company Whether the definition of “transfer” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(54) includes a debtor's deposit into his own bank account.
16-1323 Supreme Court of New Mexico v. U.S. Whether Rule 16-308(E) of the New Mexico Rules of Professional Conduct is pre-empted with respect to federal prosecutors in the context of grand jury proceedings.
16-1309 S.G.E. Management, LLC v. Torres (1) Whether a RICO fraud plaintiff must prove reliance in order to establish causation, as this Court held in Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity, or whether reliance is no longer required; and (2) whether, to certify a RICO fraud class action, the plaintiff must show that reliance is a common issue because virtually all class members would have relied, or whether it is sufficient to show merely that it “follows logically” that some class members would have relied.
16-1308 Bolden v. Missouri Whether, when a defendant is deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a pretrial competency proceeding, the appropriate remedy is reversal of his conviction.
16-1307 Bahlul v. U.S. (1) Whether military commissions' assumption of the federal courts' subject-matter jurisdiction over wholly domestic crimes, such as conspiracy, violates Article III's reservation of the “trial of all crimes” to the judiciary; (2) whether the Military Commissions Act's codification of crimes not otherwise recognized as war crimes under international law was intended to apply retroactively and, if so, whether that violates the ex post facto clause; and (3) whether the Military Commissions Act's establishment of a segregated criminal justice system in which only non-citizens are subject to military commission jurisdiction violates the constitutional guarantee of equal justice under law.
16-1288 Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (1) Whether the inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 101 requires courts to ignore the specification, as the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held, or whether courts should ascertain the true scope of the claims in light of the specification and intrinsic record in determining whether they are drawn to a patent-ineligible concept; and (2) whether an otherwise revolutionary technological breakthrough is not an “inventive concept” under the second step of Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International merely because the court believed the breakthrough could theoretically be implemented without a computer.
16-1285 N. E. v. Seattle School District Whether an educational setting constitutes a child's “then-current educational placement” under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j) simply because it is the placement listed in an individualized education program drafted by the school district, when the parents objected to the portion of the IEP listing that placement, and the child never actually attended that placement.
16-1275 Virginia Uranium v. Warren Whether the Atomic Energy Act pre-empts a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction (here uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (here, the milling of uranium and the management of the resulting tailings).
16-1274 Xue v. Sessions (1) Whether an asylum applicant suffers “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A) if he or she is forced to practice his or her religion in secret in order to avoid state-imposed punishment; and (2) whether a court of appeals reviews the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination regarding the existence of persecution de novo (as a question of law) or for substantial evidence (as a question of fact), where all the underlying facts giving rise to the claim of persecution are undisputed.
16-1251 Steager v. CSX Transportation (1) Whether the dormant commerce clause requires a State that imposes a fairly apportioned use tax to also credit sales taxes paid to other States; and (2) whether the dormant commerce clause requires a State that does not impose county or municipal use taxes to provide a credit for sales taxes paid to other States' counties or municipalities.
16-1239 Rothe Development v. U.S. Department of Defense (1) Whether a statutory program that requires an agency to distribute benefits to “socially disadvantaged individuals,” and defines “socially disadvantaged” in terms of membership in certain racial minority groups, classifies on the basis of race and is thus subject to strict scrutiny; and (2) whether a statute that may not classify exclusively on the basis of race, but uses race as a factor in determining eligibility for benefits, is subject to strict scrutiny.
16-1231 Elonis v. U.S. (1) Whether, as a matter of statutory or constitutional law, liability under 18 U.S.C. 875(c) requires an analysis of whether a reasonable person would be threatened by the communication, or whether it is instead sufficient to examine whether a particular recipient, whether reasonable or not, would have considered it threatening; and (2) whether an erroneous pre-trial holding that the defendant's subjective mental state is not an element of the crime, followed by jury instructions and government argument to the same effect, can be harmless error.
16-1221 Conagra Brands v. Briseño Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 permits a district court to certify a damages class where there is no reliable, administratively feasible method of identifying the members of the class.
16-1207 Bellant v. Snyder Whether a law that removes all governmental authority from locally-elected officials in municipalities that have disproportionately large minority populations, and thereby denies the residents of those municipalities the ability to elect representatives of their choice to govern them, is subject to scrutiny under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301.
16-1206 Batato v. U.S. (1) Whether a district court, consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution, can exercise in rem jurisdiction over foreign property that is within the exclusive custody and control of foreign courts; (2) whether a district court, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 2466 and due process, can resolve factual disputes and make adverse credibility determinations at the pleading stage in finding that a claimant is a disentitled fugitive; and (3) whether a foreign national residing abroad should be deemed to have the intent “to avoid criminal prosecution” and be disentitled as a fugitive, consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 2466 and due process, merely because avoiding criminal prosecution is a reason (not the sole or primary reason) why the foreign national has not entered the United States while aware that he faces criminal prosecution here.
16-1197 QinetiQ U.S. Holdings & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Whether an Internal Revenue Service Notice of Deficiency, just like any other final agency action, is subject to the reasoned-explanation requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
16-1190 Davis v. U.S. Whether the government violates a criminal defendant's right to due process when it immunizes a significant prosecution witness but refuses to immunize a directly contradictory defense witness solely on the ground that the prosecutor disbelieves the defense witness' proffered testimony.
16-1189 E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Smiley (1) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits an employer from using compensation paid to employees for non-compensable, bona fide meal breaks that it included in their regular rate of pay as a credit against compensation owed for work time; and (2) whether an agency's interpretation of a statute advanced for the first time in litigation is entitled to Skidmore v. Swift & Co. deference.
16-1167 Ohio v. Moore (1) Whether Graham v. Florida's categorical rule applies to consecutive, fixed-term prison sentences for multiple non-homicide offenses committed by a juvenile that result in a lengthy aggregate sentence; (2) if Graham's categorical rule applies to consecutive, fixed-term prison sentences for multiple non-homicide offenses, at what point must a juvenile be provided “some meaningful opportunity for release”; and (3) whether Graham applies retroactively to juveniles sentenced to consecutive, fixed-term prison sentences for multiple non-homicide offenses that result in a lengthy aggregate sentence.
16-1153 Livingwell Medical Clinic v. Becerra (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred, in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 4th Circuits, in holding that the petitioners can be compelled to advertise free or low-cost abortion services to all clients; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred in not applying strict scrutiny to a law that compels speech and is content-based, in conflict with the decisional law of the Supreme Court.
16-1150 Hall v. Hall Whether the clarity Gelboim v. Bank of America gave to multidistrict cases should be extended to single district consolidated cases, so that the entry of a final judgment in only one case triggers the appeal-clock for that case.
16-1148 Evergreen Partnering Group v. Pactiv Corp. (1) Whether Eastman Kodak Industry Co. v. Image Technical Services, Inc.'s Rule 56 standard or the more stringent “tends to exclude the possibility of independent action” standard articulated in Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. applies where the alleged conduct, unlike in Matsushita, is not inherently pro-competitive and is not economically or otherwise irrational; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit improvidently applied the heightened “tends to exclude” test to the petitioner's concerted refusal to deal claim, in circumstances in which it is not warranted, and thus erroneously denied the plaintiff its right to have its case heard by the trier of fact.
16-1146 A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Becerra (1) Whether a determination that a law is content-based leaves room for a court to apply something less than strict scrutiny, specifically (a) whether the court's decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert establishes a bright-line rule for content-based speech, (b) whether content-based, compelled speech is subject to lower scrutiny if it is deemed to be an abortion-related disclosure, and (c) whether the First Amendment permits lower scrutiny for content-based restrictions on professional speech or professional facilities; and (2) whether a law requiring religious non-profits to post a government message antithetical to their beliefs triggers heightened or minimal scrutiny under the free exercise clause.
16-1140 National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra Whether the free speech clause or the free exercise clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.
16-1137 616 Croft Ave., LLC v. City of West Hollywood Whether a legislatively mandated permit condition is subject to scrutiny under the unconstitutional conditions doctrine as set out in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, Dolan v. City of Tigard and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission.
16-1125 Lacaze v. Louisiana (1) Whether, under McDonough Power Equipment, Inc. v. Greenwood, “a valid basis for a challenge for cause” requires a showing that a correct response would have subjected the juror to mandatory or per se disqualification, or whether it requires a showing that a hypothetical reasonable judge would have granted a motion to dismiss the juror for cause; (2) whether the McDonough test applies only in cases of deliberate dishonesty by the juror or whether it applies also in cases of misleading omissions; and (3) whether a trial judge's involvement as a witness in a police investigation before and during trial, and his failure to even disclose it, creates an “unconstitutional potential for bias” under Williams v. Pennsylvania.
16-1094 Republic of Sudan v. Harrison Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred by holding – in direct conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 5th and 7th Circuits and in the face of an amicus brief from the United States – that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may serve the foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by mail addressed and dispatched to the head of the foreign state's ministry of foreign affairs “via” or in “care of” the foreign state's diplomatic mission in the United States, despite U.S. obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to preserve mission inviolability.
16-1087 Carvalho v. North Carolina (1) Whether the burden of proof concerning the reasons for pretrial delay rests (a) with the state, to show that the reasons for delay were justified, as eleven circuits and many state courts of last resort have held; or (b) with the defendant, to show that the reasons for delay were unjustified, as the court below held; and (2) whether a defendant who was incarcerated during a nearly-nine-year pretrial delay must also produce “affirmative proof of prejudice” for Barker v. Wingo's prejudice factor to weigh in his favor.
16-1067 Murphy v. Smith Whether the parenthetical phrase “not to exceed 25 percent,” as used in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), means any amount up to 25 percent (as four circuits hold), or whether it means exactly 25 percent (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit holds).
16-1027 Collins v. Virginia Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
16-1022 Bell v. McAdory Whether the denial of a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) is a separately appealable final order, as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
16-1009 Aksu v. California What is the standard by which appellate courts review a trial court's holding that a defendant voluntarily consented to a warrantless search for Fourth Amendment purposes.
16-961 Dalmazzi v. U.S. (1) Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding that the petitioner's challenge to Judge Martin T. Mitchell's continued service on the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, after he was nominated and confirmed to the Article I U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, was moot – because his CMCR commission had not been signed until after the U.S. Air Force CCA decided her case on the merits, even though she moved for reconsideration after the commission was signed; (2) whether Judge Mitchell's service on the CMCR disqualified him from continuing to serve on the AFCCA under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii), which requires express authorization from Congress before active-duty military officers may hold a “civil office,” including positions that require “an appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”; and (3) whether Judge Mitchell's simultaneous service on both the CMCR and the AFCCA violated the appointments clause.
16-790 Butka v. Sessions Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in this case by holding that it had no jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen by the Board of Immigration Appeals, where the review sought was limited to assessing the legal framework upon which the sua sponte request was made.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22O147 New Mexico v. Colorado (1) Whether Colorado is liable under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and common law for all costs, including prejudgment interest, incurred by New Mexico in responding to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Gold King Mine, the Sunnyside Mine, or the American Tunnel to the date of judgment; (2) whether Colorado is liable under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(g)(2), and common law, for all response costs that will be incurred by New Mexico in responding to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the Gold King Mine, the Sunnyside Mine, or the American Tunnel; (3) whether Colorado is in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act's imminent and substantial endangerment provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), until it ceases the disposal of hazardous substances from the Gold King Mine and the Sunnyside Mine, including, but not limited to, acid wastewater, mine sludge, mine-dump runoff, and metals into the Animas River watershed; (4) whether Colorado has negligently, recklessly and willfully authorized and allowed the discharge of toxic mine waste directly into the Animas River in a manner that has injured and continues to threaten the health, safety, and comfort of downstream New Mexico residents; (5) whether the court should award New Mexico compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages caused by Colorado's negligent, reckless, and willful conduct, including, but not limited to, investigation, clean-up, and remedial costs, economic loss, diminution in value, and stigma damages; (6) whether the court should order Colorado to abate the ongoing public nuisance in the Upper Animas Mining District and the Animas River within Colorado; and (7) whether Colorado is liable for all costs incurred and costs that may be incurred by New Mexico to abate the nuisance in the Animas and San Juan Rivers within New Mexico.
16-1215 Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling Whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor's ... financial condition” within Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
16-1180 Brewer v. Arizona Dream Act Coalition (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in creating an immigration-specific rule under which state police power regulations that “arrang[e]” federal immigration classifications are pre-empted, even if pre-emption was not “the clear and manifest purpose of Congress”; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred in assuming that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an executive-branch policy of non-enforcement, was valid “federal law” capable of pre-empting a state police power regulation.
16-1102 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (1) Whether the court's decisions in Graham v. John Deere Co. and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. require a court to hold patents obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103 where the patents make at most trivial advances over technologies well-known to a person of skill in the art; (2) whether the court's decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. requires application of the four-factor test for injunctions in accordance with traditional equitable principles, and therefore requires more than merely “some connection” between an infringing feature and asserted irreparable harm to support issuance of an injunction for patent infringement; and (3) whether the court's decision in Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co. requires evidence that an accused product meets all elements of the relevant claim to support entry of a judgment of patent infringement.
16-1071 Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization Whether the Fifth Amendment's due process clause precludes federal courts from exercising personal jurisdiction in this suit by American victims of terrorist attacks abroad carried out by the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
16-1043 Clark v. Virginia Department of State Police (1) Whether, by enacting 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b)(2) in 1998, Congress lawfully subjected state employees to suit in state court under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 pursuant to a valid exercise of Congress’s war powers that was consistent with the framework and design of the Constitution; (2) whether Congress lawfully abrogated any sovereign immunity the Virginia Department of State Police purportedly retained with respect to USERRA actions in state court when Congress enacted 38 U.S.C. § 4323(b)(2); and (3) whether the Supreme Court of Virginia erroneously affirmed the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County's decision to sustain the Virginia Department of State Police's amended special plea of sovereign immunity and dismiss petitioner's complaint.
16-1011 WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f).
16-970 Rinehart v. California Whether the Supreme Court of California erred in holding, in conflict with decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and Federal Circuits and the Colorado Supreme Court, that the Mining Law of 1972, as amended, does not pre-empt state bans of mining on federal lands despite being “an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of that law.
16-768 Snyder v. Doe Whether retroactively applying a sex-offender-registry law that classifies offenders into tiers based on crime of conviction, requires certain offenders to register for life, requires offenders to report in person periodically and within days of certain changes to registry information, and restricts offenders' activities within school zones imposes “punishment” in violation of the ex post facto clause.
16-668 Magee v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA Whether Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 applies only to physical spaces that people can enter.
16-334 Bank Melli v. Bennett (1) Whether Section 1610(g) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act establishes a freestanding exception to sovereign immunity, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held below, or instead merely supersedes First National City Bank v. Banco Para El Comercio Exterior de Cuba’s presumption of separate status while still requiring a plaintiff to satisfy the criteria for overcoming immunity elsewhere in Section 1610, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has held and the United States has repeatedly urged; and (2) whether a court should apply federal or state law to determine whether assets constitute “property of” or “assets of” the sovereign under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act and Section 1610(g), and whether those provisions require that the sovereign own the property in question, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held and the United States has repeatedly urged, contrary to the decision below.
Term Snapshot
Awards