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)
17-886 Fleck v. Wetch (1) Whether it violates the First Amendment for state law to presume that the petitioner consents to subsidizing non-chargeable speech by the group he is compelled to fund (an “opt-out” rule), as opposed to an “opt-in” rule whereby the petitioner must affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech; and (2) whether Keller v. State Bar of California and Lathrop v. Donohue should be overruled insofar as they permit the state to force the petitioner to join a trade association he opposes as a condition of earning a living in his chosen profession.
17-1340 Andersen v. Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri Whether the provisions of the Medicaid Act that require participating states to include in their plans the ability of eligible individuals to obtain services from any “qualified” provider, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23), but grant states broad authority to exclude providers for violating state or federal requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(p), indicate that Congress clearly and unambiguously intended to create an implied private right of action to challenge a state’s determination that a provider is not “qualified” under the applicable state regulations.
17-1382 Lance v. Sellers (1) Whether it was objectively unreasonable for the Georgia Supreme Court to find that no prejudice resulted from the failure of defense counsel to conduct any investigation and to present any mitigating evidence, including readily available and undisputed expert testimony that the defendant suffered from significantly diminished mental capacity constituting dementia at the time of the crime, when these failures deprived the jury of mitigating evidence that was essential to an individualized determination of the defendant’s culpability; and (2) whether prejudice must be presumed in a death penalty case when defense counsel fails to conduct any investigation of potential mitigating evidence, fails to offer any evidence during the penalty phase, and fails to subject the state’s penalty-phase witnesses to any cross-examination, thereby undermining the adversarial system and depriving the defendant and the fact-finder of any meaningful opportunity to conduct an individualized determination of the defendant’s culpability.
17-1492 Gee v. Planned Parenthood of Gulf Coast Inc. Whether individual Medicaid recipients have a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23) to challenge the merits of a state’s disqualification of a Medicaid provider.
17-1660 City of Escondido, California v. Emmons (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by considering clearly established law at too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case; (2) whether the lower court erred in denying the officers qualified immunity by relying on a single decision, published after the event in question, to support its conclusion that qualified immunity is not available; and (3) whether the lower court erred in failing or refusing to decide whether the subject arrest was without probable cause or subject to qualified immunity.
17-1676 Stuart v. Alabama Whether the Alabama courts’ decision to permit the introduction of written “reports” to law enforcement, regarding blood alcohol tests, into evidence for the truth of the matters asserted therein — despite the lack of testimony from the person who performed the test and signed the report, or any witness who personally involved in the testing of the blood samples in question — is contrary to Bullcoming v. New Mexico.
18-12 Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Whether public school teachers and coaches retain any First Amendment rights when at work and “in the general presence of” students.
18-56 Shoop v. Hill Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit properly used Moore v. Texas, a Supreme Court decision from 2017, to find that an Ohio court unreasonably applied Atkins v. Virginia in 2008, despite the Ohio court’s reliance on the clinical judgments of experts to find that Hill was not intellectually disabled.
18-315 Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. Hunt Whether a relator in a False Claims Act qui tam action may rely on the statute of limitations in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(2) in a suit in which the United States has declined to intervene and, if so, whether the relator constitutes an “official of the United States” for purposes of Section 3731(b)(2).

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
18-420 U.S. v. Wheeler Whether a prisoner whose 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion challenging the applicability of a statutory minimum was denied based on circuit precedent may later seek habeas relief on the ground that the circuit’s interpretation of the relevant statutes has changed.
18-415 HP Inc. v. Berkheimer Whether patent eligibility is a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of the art at the time of the patent.
18-410 Yates v. U.S. Whether, to establish a violation of Brady v. Maryland, a defendant must show that he did not know of the evidence suppressed by the government and could not have obtained it with reasonable diligence.
18-391 Arizona v. Goodman (1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in holding that United States v. Salerno prohibits a state from denying bail to an arrestee when a judge, after a full adversarial hearing, finds clear proof that the arrestee committed sexual assault; and (2) whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in joining a growing number of jurisdictions that hold a statute facially unconstitutional even if it is capable of constitutional application in some circumstances.
18-378 Merck & Co. Inc. v. Gilead Sciences Inc. Whether the equitable defense of unclean hands precludes legal relief in the form of damages.
18-374 Castillo v. U.S. Whether a criminal defendant convicted of violating the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, 46 U.S.C. § 70501, et seq., and subject to a mandatory minimum sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 960, is eligible for relief from that mandatory minimum under the statutory “safety valve” of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f).
18-370 Haight v. U.S. Whether a criminal offense with a reckless mens rea qualifies as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).
18-365 The Presbyterian Church in Morristown v. Freedom From Religion Foundation Whether the categorical exclusion of active houses of worship from a competitive government grant program advancing the secular interest of historic preservation violates the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution of the United States.
18-364 Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Freedom From Religion Foundation (1) Whether using generally available historic preservation funds to repair or restore a house of worship constitutes a “religious use” that falls outside the scope of Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia Inc. v. Comer; and (2) whether the categorial exclusion of all active houses of worship from historic preservation grants violates Trinity Lutheran and the First Amendment as an exclusion based on religious status.
18-355 Prison Legal News v. Jones Whether the Florida Department of Corrections’ blanket ban of Prison Legal News violates a petitioner’s First Amendment right to free speech and a free press.
18-349 Patterson v. Walgreen Co. (1) Whether an accommodation that merely lessens or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between work and religious practice is “reasonable” per se, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th and 11th Circuits hold; does it instead create a jury question, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 10th Circuits hold; or must an accommodation fully eliminate the conflict in order to be “reasonable” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th and 9th Circuits hold; (2) whether speculation about possible future burdens is sufficient to meet the employer’s burden in establishing “undue hardship,” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th and 11th Circuits hold, or must the employer demonstrate an actual burden, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuits hold; and (3) whether the portion of TWA v. Hardison opining that “undue hardship” simply means something more than a “de minimis cost” should be disavowed or overruled.
18-339 Harper v. Leahy Whether the Fourth Amendment requires police officers to have probable cause to believe that a suspect is present in a home before forcing entry into that home to execute an arrest warrant for the suspect.
18-321 TVEyes Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC Whether the transformative use of a copyrighted work can cause a cognizable market harm under 17 U.S.C. § 107(4) if it is used in connection with a commercially successful business that the author is unlikely to enter or authorize.
18-304 Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Davidson Whether a consumer, after using a product and determining that a representation concerning that product is allegedly misleading, can plausibly allege a “real and immediate threat” that she will be deceived by that same representation in the future so as to establish standing to seek an injunction.
18-302 Iancu v. Brunetti Whether Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is facially invalid under the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
18-285 Missouri v. Douglass (1) Whether severance is the default remedy when part of a warrant is valid, or whether the Fourth Amendment requires that the valid sections make up “the greater part of the warrant”; (2) whether the particularity clause—which requires a warrant to describe “the place to be search[ed]” and “the things to be seized” with sufficient particularity— also requires a warrant to state its probable-cause findings with particularity; and (3) whether the exclusionary rule applies when the issuing judge signs off on the officer’s legal mistake in filling out a warrant form.
18-280 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause and the constitutional right to travel.
18-273 Williams v. Sessions Whether an indivisible state statute that criminalizes false agency endorsement is categorically “an offense relating to ... forgery” and thus an aggravated felony.
18-272 Yovino v. Rizo (1) Whether—when the Equal Pay Act permits employers to pay men and women different wages for the same work “where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex,” 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)—a prior salary is a “factor other than sex”; and (2) whether deceased judges may continue to participate in the determination of cases after their deaths.
18-268 Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. v. Upstate Forever (1) Whether the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirement is confined to discharges from a point source to navigable waters, or whether it also applies to discharges into soil or groundwater whenever there is a “direct hydrological connection” between the groundwater and nearby navigable waters; and (2) whether an “ongoing violation” of the Clean Water Act exists for purposes of the act’s citizen-suit provision when a point source has permanently ceased discharging pollutants, but some of the pollutants are still reaching navigable water through groundwater.
18-266 The Dutra Group v. Batterton Whether punitive damages may be awarded to a Jones Act seaman in a personal-injury suit alleging a breach of the general maritime duty to provide a seaworthy vessel.
18-260 County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (1) Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater; and (2) whether the County of Maui had fair notice that a Clean Water Act permit was required for its underground injection control wells that operated without such a permit for nearly 40 years.
18-247 Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Department of Homeland Security Whether Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act—which grants the Secretary of Homeland Security sweeping power to waive any or all legal requirements in her sole discretion, and then insulates that exercise of discretion from judicial review—violates the separation of powers.
18-238 South Carolina v. Samuel Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred when it held, in conflict with many federal courts of appeals, that a trial court may not deny a criminal defendant’s motion to represent himself based on the “defendant’s improper motive or unethical conduct.”
18-234 Campos v. U.S. Whether, and to what extent, the discretionary-function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), restricts the FTCA’s law enforcement proviso, which waives the United States’ sovereign immunity for “[a]ny claim” arising out of an enumerated list of intentional common-law torts committed by federal law-enforcement officers.
18-225 Zappos.com Inc. v. Stevens Whether individuals whose personal information is held in a database breached by hackers have Article III standing simply by virtue of the breach even without concrete injury, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 9th and District of Columbia Circuits have held, or whether concrete injury as a result of the breach is required for Article III standing, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 8th Circuits have held.
18-217 Mathena v. Malvo Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in concluding—in direct conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts—that a decision of the Supreme Court, Montgomery v. Louisiana, addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision, Miller v. Alabama, applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question.
18-212 Bank of America, N.A. v. Lusnak (1) Whether the National Bank Act pre-empts state laws regulating national-bank loan terms, such as California’s law requiring payment of interest on mortgage-loan escrow accounts; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in disregarding regulations from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the primary regulator of national banks, concerning the applicability of state real-estate lending laws to national banks.
18-192 J. B. R. v. U.S. Whether the due process clause forbids the government from prosecuting an individual who was a juvenile at the time of the crime under a statute that provides no punishment that can constitutionally be applied to that individual.
18-188 Tucker v. U.S. (1) Whether trial counsel’s failure to make an argument that courts of appeals outside the circuit have accepted (and the circuit has not addressed) may amount to constitutionally deficient assistance of counsel or, instead, whether only directly controlling precedent is relevant; and (2) whether, when a defendant and the government have agreed that the court will address at sentencing a factual question for purposes of imposing a statutory mandatory-minimum sentence, they have also implicitly agreed that the defendant’s “offense of conviction” has “established” the factual finding for purposes of the Sentencing Guidelines.
18-127 Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi Whether the standard for determining the adequacy of the “written description of the invention” in a patent must be “in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains . . . to make and use the same,” as stated within the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), or whether court-created standards should control instead.
18-113 Rodgers v. Florida Whether waiving a state-law right to have a jury make an advisory sentencing recommendation constitutes a knowing and intelligent waiver of the federal constitutional right to have a jury make all requisite findings for the imposition of death, particularly when the latter right did not exist at the time of the waiver.
18-107 R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (1) Whether the word “sex” in Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of . . . sex,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), meant “gender identity” and included “transgender status” when Congress enacted Title VII in 1964; and (2) whether Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins prohibits employers from applying sex-specific policies according to their employees’ sex rather than their gender identity.
18-106 Turner v. U.S. (1) Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when the prosecutor conducts plea negotiations before the filing of a formal charge; and (2) whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches when a federal prosecutor conducts plea negotiations before the filing of a formal charge in federal court when the defendant has already been charged with the same offense in state court.
18-89 AmeriCulture Inc. v. Los Lobos Renewable Power, LLC (1) Whether a state anti-SLAPP provision requiring an award of attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing defendant applies in federal court as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 9th Circuits have concluded, in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and District of Columbia Circuits; and (2) whether a state anti-SLAPP provision requiring expedited disposition of dismissal motions applies in federal court as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st and 5th Circuits have held, in conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and District of Columbia Circuits.
18-78 Ramirez-Barajas v. Sessions Whether, when a state statute criminalizes only the causation or threat of bodily harm without a distinct element requiring the use or threatened use of physical force, that offense qualifies as a crime of violence within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) as the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 7th, 8th and 9th Circuits have held, or whether 18 U.S.C. § 16(a) applies only if the statute also requires the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd and 5th Circuits have held.
18-64 Lucio-Rayos v. Sessions Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
18-42 GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Louisiana Whether state sovereign immunity bars a federal court from binding a state to a Rule 23 class settlement as an absent class member plaintiff based on the state’s failure to opt out of the class.
18-39 Boyd v. Washington Whether the requirement of frequent, in-person reporting renders an offender-registration law punitive, such that applying the law retroactively violates the ex post facto clause.
17-6943 Jones v. Oklahoma (1) Whether a complex statistical study that indicates a risk that racial considerations enter into Oklahoma’s capital-sentencing determinations proves that the petitioner’s death sentence is unconstitutional under the Sixth, Eighth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether Oklahoma’s capital post-conviction statute, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 1089(D)(8)(b), and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ application of the statute in this case, denies the petitioner an adequate corrective process for the hearing and determination of his newly available federal constitutional claim in violation of his rights under the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.
17-6891 Wood v. Oklahoma (1) Whether a complex statistical study that indicates a risk that racial considerations enter into Oklahoma’s capital-sentencing determinations proves that the petitioner’s death sentence is unconstitutional under the Sixth, Eighth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether Oklahoma’s capital post-conviction statute, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 1089(D)(8)(b), and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ application of the statute in this case, denies the petitioner an adequate corrective process for the hearing and determination of his newly available federal constitutional claim in violation of his rights under the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.
17-1692 Ahsan v. Staples the Office Superstore East Inc. Whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held, the Seventh Amendment categorically bars review of district court denials of motions for a new trial made on the ground that the weight of the evidence does not support the verdict; or whether, as all other geographic circuits hold, such denials are reviewable.
17-1623 Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
17-1542 McKee v. Cosby Whether a victim of sexual misconduct who merely publicly states that she was victimized (i.e., #metoo) has thrust herself to the forefront of a public debate in an attempt to influence the outcome, thereby becoming a limited-purpose public figure who loses her right to recover for defamation absent a showing of actual malice by clear and convincing evidence.
17-1189 Torrez v. U.S. (1) Whether the categorical approach set forth in Taylor v. United States and its progeny applies to determine whether a defendant has “previously been convicted” of a relevant offense; (2) whether prior-conviction aggravators can be satisfied by convictions for conduct that occurred after the capital offense; and (3) whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell-site location information, revealing a cell-phone user’s location and movement over a prolonged period of time, violates the Fourth Amendment.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22O149 Indiana v. Massachusetts Whether the Massachusetts Animal Law, which prohibits farmers both inside and outside of the state from selling certain food products in Massachusetts that are the “product of a covered animal that was confined in a cruel manner,” constitutes economic protectionism and extraterritorial regulation in violation of the Commerce Clause.
22O148 Missouri v. California (1) Whether the Egg Products Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. § 1031 et seq., pre-empts the California regulations that require eggs shipped to California to comport with different standards of quality, condition, weight, quantity, or grade which are in addition to and different from the EPIA; and (2) whether the California regulations constitute a protectionist measure in violation of the Commerce Clause.
18-309 Swartz v. Rodriguez (1) Whether the panel’s decision to create an implied remedy for damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the new context of a cross-border shooting misapplies Supreme Court precedent and violates the separation-of-powers principles, when foreign relations, border security and the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment are some of the special factors that counsel hesitation against such an extension; and (2) whether, if the above “antecedent” question is answered in the negative, Agent Swartz is entitled to qualified immunity because there is no clearly established law applying the Fourth Amendment to protect a Mexican citizen, with no significant connection to the United States, who is injured in Mexico by a federal agent’s cross-border shooting.
18-164 First Solar Inc. v. Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme Whether a private securities-fraud plaintiff may establish the critical element of loss causation based on a decline in the market price of a security where the event or disclosure that triggered the decline did not reveal the fraud on which the plaintiff’s claim is based.
18-109 Ariosa Diagnostics Inc. v. Illumina Inc. Whether unclaimed disclosures in a published patent application and an earlier application it relies on for priority enter the public domain and thus become prior art as of the earlier application’s filing date, or, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held, does the prior art date of the disclosures depend on whether the published application also claims subject matter from the earlier application.
17-1712 Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (1) Whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek injunctive relief against fiduciary misconduct under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; and (2) whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek restoration of plan losses caused by fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof.
17-1686 RPX Corp. v. ChanBond LLC Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can refuse to hear an appeal by a petitioner from an adverse final decision in a Patent Office inter partes review on the basis of lack of a patent-inflicted injury-in-fact when Congress has (i) statutorily created the right to have the Director of the Patent Office cancel patent claims when the petitioner has met its burden to show unpatentability of those claims, (ii) statutorily created the right for parties dissatisfied with a final decision of the Patent Office to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and (iii) statutorily created an estoppel prohibiting the petitioner from again challenging the patent claims.
17-1678 Hernandez v. Mesa (1) Whether, when the plaintiffs plausibly allege that a rogue federal law enforcement officer violated clearly established Fourth and Fifth amendment rights for which there is no alternative legal remedy, the federal courts can and should recognize a damages claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics; and (2) whether, if the federal courts do not recognize such a claim, the Westfall Act violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment insofar as it pre-empts state-law torts suits for damages against rogue federal law enforcement officers acting within the scope of their employment for which there is no alternative legal remedy.
17-1534 Bank Markazi v. Peterson Whether a foreign sovereign’s property outside of the United States is entitled to sovereign immunity.
17-1530 Banca UBAE, S.p.A. v. Peterson Whether a federal appellate court is required to decide personal jurisdiction over a defendant when the record in the trial court and on appeal is complete, the parties briefed the issue in the trial court and on appeal, but the appellate court ignored the question.
17-1529 Clearstream Banking S.A. v. Peterson Whether foreign sovereign property held by a foreign financial intermediary in a foreign country may, under any circumstances, be subject to execution in United States courts.
17-1498 Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian (1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with remedies the Environmental Protection Agency ordered is a jurisdictionally barred “challenge” to the EPA’s cleanup under 42 U.S.C. § 9613 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; (2) whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a “potentially responsible party” that must seek EPA approval under 42 U.S.C. § 9622(e)(6) of CERCLA before engaging in remedial action, even if the EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup; and (3) whether CERCLA pre-empts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.
17-1406 Republic of Sudan v. Opati (1) Whether the term “extrajudicial killing” means a summary execution by state actors, as is consistent with international law and the statutory text, context and purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a); (2) whether foreign sovereign immunity may be withdrawn for emotional distress claims brought by family members of victims under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii); (3) whether 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) provides the exclusive remedy for actions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a), and forecloses state substantive causes of action previously asserted through the “pass-through” provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1606; (4) whether the statute of limitations contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(b) is jurisdictional in nature and, if it is not, whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should nonetheless have heard Sudan’s limitations defense asserted through its timely, direct appeal; and (5) whether the undisputed fact of civil war, internal strife and partitioning of Sudan into two counties constitutes excusable neglect or extraordinary circumstances for vacatur under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
17-1301 Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (1) Whether the tribal remedies exhaustion doctrine, which requires federal courts to stay cases challenging tribal jurisdiction until the parties have exhausted parallel tribal court proceedings, applies to state courts; and (2) whether the tribal remedies exhaustion doctrine requires that nontribal courts yield to tribal courts when the parties have not invoked the tribal court’s jurisdiction.
17-1285 Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Becerra (1) Whether a state’s ban on the sale of wholesome, federally approved poultry products based on the state’s disapproval of the way in which the poultry ingredient was produced imposes an “ingredient requirement” in addition to or different than those in the Poultry Products Inspection Act; and (2) whether Congress has pre-empted the field of poultry-product ingredients, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th and 6th Circuits have long held — or not, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has just held.
17-1268 Opati v. Republic of Sudan (1) Whether a party who knowingly and intentionally twice defaults; acts to delay, and not in good faith; and affirmatively elects not to contest a nonjurisdictional legal issue before judgment may nevertheless demonstrate “extraordinary” and “exceptional” circumstances warranting appellate review of the forfeited nonjurisdictional legal issue post-judgment; and (2) whether, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively, thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute.
17-1237 Osage Wind, LLC v. Osage Mineral Council (1) Whether a court of appeals has jurisdiction over an appeal filed by a nonparty when the nonparty did not participate in any capacity in the district court proceedings; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit improperly invoked the Indian canon of construction to deprive surface-estate owners who are members or successors-in-interest to Indian tribe members of important property rights by overriding clear regulatory language for the express purpose of favoring the economic interests of an Indian tribe without examining congressional intent.
17-1236 Sudan v. Owens (1) Whether plaintiffs suing a foreign state bear a “lighter burden” in establishing the facts necessary for jurisdiction than in proving a case on the merits despite the Supreme Court’s holding to the contrary — at the urging of the Solicitor General and the Department of State — in Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.; (2) whether plaintiffs suing a foreign state can establish facts necessary for jurisdiction “based solely upon” the opinion testimony of so-called “terrorism experts,” when the record lacks admissible factual evidence sufficient to establish jurisdiction; and (3) whether plaintiffs’ failure to prove a foreign state “either specifically intended or directly advanced” a terrorist attack is “irrelevant to proximate cause and jurisdictional causation,” when (i) the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s “terrorism exception” establishes jurisdiction over a foreign state only when the foreign state provided material support “for” a specified act of terrorism, and (ii) proximate causation requires a “direct relationship” between the defendant’s conduct and the resultant injury.
17-1183 Airline Service Providers Association v. Los Angeles World Airports Whether the “market participant” exception to federal pre-emption allows a state or local government to impose an otherwise pre-empted rule on private companies even if the government is not procuring any good or service from them.
17-1175 Poarch Band of Creek Indians v. Wilkes Whether an Indian tribe is immune from civil liability for tort claims asserted by nonmembers.
17-1165 de Csepel v. Republic of Hungary Whether a foreign state itself is immune from suit in the United States in a case in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are at issue, the property is located outside the United States, the property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state, and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in commercial activity in the United States.
17-938 City of Cibolo, Texas v. Green Valley Special Utility District (1) Whether “[t]he service” protected by 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) – which provides that a rural utility association that receives a federal loan for water or wastewater infrastructure enjoys monopoly protection for “[t]he service provided or made available” by the association during the term of the loan – refers to the service funded by the federal law, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has held, or to all services provided by a federal loan recipient, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held in this case; and (2) whether an association seeking to demonstrate that it has “provided or made available” a protected “service” must show that the service is being or can promptly be furnished, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th Circuits have held, or need only show that it has a legal duty under state law to provide that service, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has held.
17-936 Gilead Sciences v. U.S. ex rel. Campie Whether a False Claims Act allegation fails when the government continued to approve and to pay for products after learning of alleged regulatory infractions and the pleadings offer no basis for overcoming the strong inference of immateriality that arises from the government's response.
17-834 Kansas v. Garcia (1) Whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act expressly pre-empts the states from using any information entered on or appended to a federal Form I-9, including common information such as name, date of birth, and social security number, in a prosecution of any person (citizen or alien) when that same, commonly used information also appears in non-IRCA documents, such as state tax forms, leases, and credit applications; and (2) if IRCA bars the states from using all such information for any purpose, whether Congress has the constitutional power to so broadly pre-empt the states from exercising their traditional police powers to prosecute state law crimes.
Term Snapshot
Awards