Editor's Note :

On Tuesday, May 28, at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the May 23 Conference. We expect opinions in argued cases at 10 a.m. We will begin live blogging shortly before 9:30.

October Term 2011

View this list sorted by case name.

October Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
10.03.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-283 Douglas v. S.R. M. Hospital The parties will argue before the Ninth Circuit in the first instance whether the respondents may maintain Supremacy Clause actions in light of the approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the challenged California statutes that reduce the amount of Medicaid reimbursement. 2.22.2012
10.03.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 09-958 Douglas v. In. Liv'g Ctr. of S. Cal. The parties will argue before the Ninth Circuit in the first instance whether the respondents may maintain Supremacy Clause actions in light of the approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the challenged California statutes that reduce the amount of Medicaid reimbursement. 2.22.2012
10.3.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 09-1158 Douglas v. Cal. Pharm. Ass'n The parties will argue before the Ninth Circuit in the first instance whether the respondents may maintain Supremacy Clause actions in light of the approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services of the challenged California statutes that reduce the amount of Medicaid reimbursement. 2.22.2012
10.03.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-6549 Reynolds v. U.S. The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act does not require pre-Act offenders to register before the Attorney General validly specifies that the Act’s registration provi­sions apply to them. 1.23.2012
10.04.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-680 Howes v. Fields The Sixth Circuit’s categorical rule – that an interrogation is per se custodial, for purposes of Miranda v. Arizona, when a prisoner is questioned in private about events occurring outside the prison – is not clearly established by Supreme Court precedent. And by a vote of six to three, the Court held that the Sixth Circuit’s rule is also wrong. 2.21.2012
10.04.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1001 Martinez v. Ryan Where, under state law, ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims must be raised in an initial-review collateral proceeding, a procedural default will not bar a federal habeas court from hearing those claims if, in the initial-review collateral proceeding, there was no counsel or counsel in that proceeding was ineffective. 3.20.2012
10.04.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-63 Maples v. Thomas Death row inmate Cory Maples has shown the requisite “cause” to excuse his procedur­al default, which occurred when his lawyer missed a filing deadline in state court. 1.18.2012
10.05.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-545 Golan v. Holder Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act does not exceed Congress’s authority under the Copy­right Clause. 1.18.2012
10.05.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-553 Hosanna-Tabor Church v. EEOC The Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment bar suits brought on behalf of ministers against their churches, claiming termination in violation of employment discrimi­nation laws. Moreover, because the respondent in this case was a minister within the meaning of the minis­terial exception, the First Amendment requires dismissal of her em­ployment discrimination suit against her religious employer. 1.11.2012
10.11.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-948 CompuCredit v. Greenwood Because the Credit Repair Organizations Act is silent on whether claims can proceed in an arbitrable forum, the Federal Arbitration Act requires the arbitration agreement to be enforced according to its terms. 1.10.2012
10.11.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-637 Greene v. Fisher For purposes of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, “clearly established federal law” is limited to the Supreme Court’s decisions “as of the time of the relevant state-court adjudication on the merits.” 11.8.2011
10.11.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-507 Pacific Operators v. Valladolid The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act extends coverage for injury occurring as the result of operations conducted on the outer continental shelf to an employee who can establish a substantial nexus between his injury and his employer’s extractive operations on the shelf. 1.11.2012
10.12.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-694 Judulang v. Holder The policy used by the Board of Immigration Appeals to determine whether a resident alien is eligible to ask the Attorney General for relief from deportation under a provision of the immigration laws that has been repealed is “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 12.12.11
10.12.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-945 Florence v. Board of Freeholders Jail strip searches do not require reasonable suspicion, at least so long as the arrestee is being admitted into the general jail population. 4.2.2012

November Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
10.31.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-444 Missouri v. Frye The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel ex­tends to the consideration of plea offers that lapse or are rejected, and that right applies to “all ‘critical’ stages of the criminal proceedings.” 3.21.2012
10.31.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-209 Lafler v. Cooper Where counsel’s ineffective advice led to an offer’s rejection, and where the prejudice alleged is having to stand trial, a defendant must show that but for the ineffective advice, there is a reasonable probability that the plea offer would have been presented to the court, that the court would have accepted its terms, and that the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the actual judgment and sentence imposed. 3.21.2012
11.01.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-788 Rehberg v. Paulk A witness in a grand jury proceeding is entitled to the same absolute immunity from suit under Section 1983 as a witness who testifies at trial. 4.2.2012
11.01.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1104 Minneci v. Pollard Because state tort law authorizes adequate alternative damages actions in this case, no Bivens remedy can be implied. 1.10.2012
11.02.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-895 Gonzalez v. Thaler Section 2253(c)(3) is a mandatory but nonjurisdictional rule. The failure of a certificate of appealability to “indicate” a constitutional issue does not deprive a court of appeals of jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal. Moreover, for a state prisoner who does not seek review in a state’s high­est court, the judgment becomes “final” for purposes of Section 2244(d)(1)(A) upon “expiration of the time for seeking such review.” The petitioner’s appeal in this case was therefore untimely. 1.10.2012
11.02.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-8974 Perry v. New Hampshire The Due Process Clause does not require an inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances by law enforcement. 1.11.2012
11.7.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-577 Kawashima v. Holder Violations of 26 U.S.C. §§ 7206(1) and (2), which preclude making (or assisting in the making of) a false tax return, are crimes “involv[ing] fraud or deceit” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) and are therefore aggravated felonies for purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., when the loss to the govern­ment exceeds $10,000. 2.21.2012
11.7.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-699 M.B.Z. v. Clinton The political question doctrine does not bar courts from deciding whether § 214(d) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which permits U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to request that their passports state “Israel” as their place of birth, impermissibly intrudes on the President’s powers under the Constitution. 3.26.2012
11.8.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1259 U.S. v. Jones Attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. 1.23.2012
11.8.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-8145 Smith v. Cain The substantial Brady claims in the case require a reversal of the petitioner’s conviction. 1.10.2012
11.9.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-879 Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Petitioners’ state-law design-defect and failure-to-warn claims fall within the field of locomotive equipment regulation pre-empted by the Locomotive Inspection Act, as that field was defined in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 2.29.2012
11.9.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-224 National Meat Association v. Harris The Federal Meat Inspection Act expressly preempts a California law regulating the treatment of non-ambulatory pigs at federal­ly inspected slaughterhouses. 1.23.2012

December Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
11.28.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-708 First Am. Financial Corp. v. Edwards Whether a private purchaser of real estate settlement services has standing to sue under Article III, § 2 of the United States Constitution. 6.28.2012
11.28.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1195 Mims v. Arrow Financial Services The Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s grant of jurisdiction to state courts does not deprive the federal district courts of federal-question jurisdiction over private lawsuits seeking to enforce the Act. 1.18.2011
11.29.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-875 Hall v. U.S. The federal income tax liability resulting from petitioners’ post-petition farm sale is not “incurred by the estate” under §503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus is neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan. 5.14.2012
11.29.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1261 Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds Normal equitable tolling principles apply to the statute of limitations for lawsuits under § 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Section 16(a) requires corporate insiders to disclose personal transactions involving the corporation’s securities. 3.26.2012
11.30.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-7387 Setser v. U.S. A federal district court has the discretion to order a federal criminal sentence to run after a state criminal sentence that is anticipated but has not yet been imposed. 3.28.2012
11.30.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1024 FAA v. Cooper The authorization of suits against the government for “actual damages” in the Privacy Act of 1974 is not sufficiently clear to constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity from suits for mental and emotional distress. 3.28.2012
12.5.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-844 Caraco v. Novo Nordisk A generic drug manufacturer may employ the counterclaim provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act to force correction of a use code that inaccurately describes the brand’s patent as covering a particular method of using a drug. 4.17.2012
12.5.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-704 Messerschmidt v. Millender The officers in the case are entitled to qualified immunity for executing a search warrant for firearms and evidence of gang activity in a home after a victim reported that the suspect had threatened her with a gun. 2.22.2012
12.6.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1265 Martel v. Clair When evaluating motions to substitute counsel in capital cases under 18 U. S. C. § 3599, courts should employ the same “interests of justice” standard that applies in non-capital cases under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. In this case, the district court did no abuse its discretion when, using the “interests of justice” standard, it denied Clair’s second request for new counsel. The Ninth Circuit erred in overturning that denial. 3.5.2012
12.6.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-8505 Williams v. Illinois The admission of expert testimony about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts did not violate the Confrontation Clause. 6.18.2012
12.7.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1150 Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories The process patent that Prometheus Laboratories had obtained for correlations between blood test results and patient health is not eligible for a patent because it incorporates laws of nature. 3.20.2012
12.7.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-218 PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana The Montana Supreme Court’s ruling that the state of Montana owns and may charge for use of the riverbeds at issue was based on an infirm legal understanding of the Court’s rules of navigability for title un­der the equal-footing doctrine. 2.22.2012

January Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
1.9.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-713 Perry v. Perez Because it is unclear whether the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elections, the orders implementing those maps are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1.20.2012
1.09.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-714 Perry v. Davis Because it is unclear whether the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elections, the orders implementing those maps are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1.20.2012
1.9.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1219 Kappos v. Hyatt There are no limitations on a patent applicant’s ability to introduce new evidence in a 35 U.S.C. § 145 proceeding beyond those already present in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If new evidence is presented on a disputed question of fact, the district court must make de novo factual findings that take account of both the new evidence and the administrative record before the Patent and Trademark Office. 4.18.2012
1.09.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-715 Perry v. Perez Because it is unclear whether the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas followed the appropriate standards in drawing interim maps for the 2012 Texas elections, the orders implementing those maps are vacated, and the cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1.20.2012
1.9.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1062 Sackett v. EPA The petitioners may bring a civil action under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge the issuance of the Environmental Protection Agency’s administrative compliance order under Section 309 of the Clean Water Act, requiring them to take certain actions with respect to their property. 3.21.2012
1.10.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1121 Knox v. SEIU The case is not moot, and the First Amendment does not permit a public-sector union to impose a special assessment without the affirmative consent of a member upon whom it is imposed. 6.21.2012
1.10.2012
Tr.
 10-1293 FCC v. Fox Because the FCC failed to give Fox and ABC fair notice prior to the broadcasts in question that fleeting expletives and momentary nudity could be found actionably indecent, the FCC’s standards as applied to these broadcasts were vague. 6.21.2012
1.11.2012
Tr.
 10-1016 Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals Suits against the states under the self-care provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act are barred by sovereign immunity. 3.20.2012
1.11.2012
Tr.
 10-1399 Roberts v. Sea-Land Services An employee is “newly awarded compensation” for purposes of the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act when he first be­comes disabled and thereby becomes statutorily entitled to benefits, no matter whether, or when, a compensation order issues on his be­half. 3.20.2012
1.17.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1018 Filarsky v. Delia A private individual temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. 4.17.2012
1.17.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-139 U.S. v. Home Concrete & Supply Section 6501(e)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code, which extends the limitations period for the government to assess a deficiency against a taxpayer, does not apply when a taxpayer overstates the basis in property that he has sold, thereby understating the gain received from the sale. 4.25.2012
1.18.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1542 Holder v. Gutierrez The position of the Board of Immigration Appeals that an alien seeking cancellation of removal must individually satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) – lawful permanent resident status for at least five years and at least seven years of continuous residence in the United States after a lawful admission – rather than relying on a parent’s years of continuous residence or lawful permanent resident status – is based on a permissible construction of the statute. 5.21.2012
1.18.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1543 Holder v. Sawyers The position of the Board of Immigration Appeals that an alien seeking cancellation of removal must individually satisfy the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a) – lawful permanent resident status for at least five years and at least seven years of continuous residence in the United States after a lawful admission – rather than relying on a parent’s years of continuous residence or lawful permanent resident status – is based on a permissible construction of the statute. 5.21.2012
1.18.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1211 Vartelas v. Holder Because the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act burdens lawful activity on the basis of nothing more than past criminal activity, it was retroactive within the meaning of the Court’s precedents. 3.28.2012

February Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
2.21.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1042 Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc. To establish a violation of 12 U.S.C. § 2607(b) – which provides that “[n]o person shall give and no person shall accept any portion, split, or percentage of any charge made or received for the rendering of a real estate settlement service . . . other than for services actually performed” – a plaintiff must demonstrate that a charge for settlement services was divided between two or more persons. 5.24.2012
2.21.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1472 Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. Because the ordinary meaning of “interpreter” is someone who translates orally from one language to another, the category “compensation of interpreters” in 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6), which includes that category among the costs that may be awarded to prevailing parties in federal court lawsuits, does not include the cost of document translation. 5.21.2012
2.22.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-210 U.S. v. Alvarez Whether the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. § 704(b), which makes it a crime to falsely represent that you have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States, is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. 6.28.2012
2.22.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1320 Blueford v. Arkansas The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the jury in Blueford’s original trial told the trial court that it had voted unanimously against those charges but was deadlocked on the manslaughter charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the court to declare a mistrial. 5.24.2012
2.27.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-9995 Wood v. Milyard Courts of appeals, like district courts, have the authority – but not the obligation – to raise a forfeited timeliness defense on their own initiative in exceptional cases. Because the state in this case had deliberately waived the statute of limitations defense, the court of appeals abused its discretion when it dismissed Wood’s habeas petition as untimely. 4.24.2012
2.27.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-45 Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury The Civil Service Reform Act provides the exclusive avenue to judicial review when a qualifying federal employee challenges an adverse employment action by arguing that a federal statute is unconstitutional. 6.11.2012
2.28.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-88 Mohamad v. Palestinian Authority As it is used in the Torture Victim Protection Act, the term “individual” encompasses only natural persons and therefore does not impose liability on organizations. 4.18.2012
2.29.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-161 Armour v. Indianapolis Because the city had a rational basis for its distinction between homeowners who had paid their taxes in a lump sum and those who paid over time by installments, the city’s refusal to provide a refund to those who paid in a lump sum did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. 6.4.2012

March Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
3.19.2012
Tr.
 11-159 Astrue v. Capato The Social Security Administration interprets the Social Security Act to allow children conceived after their father’s death to qualify for Social Security survivors benefits only if they could inherit from their father under state intestacy law. That reading, the Court held, is better attuned to the statute’s text and its design to benefit primarily those supported by the deceased wage earner in his or her lifetime. Moreover, even if the SSA’s longstanding interpretation is not the only reasonable one, it is at least a permissible construction entitled to deference under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 5.21.2012
3.19.2012
Tr.
 11-94 Southern Union Company v. U.S. The rule established in Apprendi v. New Jersey – in which the Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee requires that any fact (other than the fact of a prior conviction) which increases the maximum punishment authorized for a particular crime be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt – applies to the imposition of criminal fines. 6.21.2012
3.20.2012
Tr.
 10-9647 Jackson v. Hobbs The Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentencing scheme that requires life in prison without the possibility of parole for juvenile homicide offenders. 6.25.2012
3.21.2012
Tr.
 11-262 Reichle v. Howards The petitioners – two Secret Service agents -- are entitled to qualified immunity from suit involving a claim that they arrested the respondent in retaliation for remarks he had made about then-Vice President Cheney because, at the time of the arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to a First Amendment violation. 6.4.2012
3.21.2012
Tr.
 11-199 Vasquez v. U.S. Whether the Seventh Circuit violated this Court's precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel's statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for their truth) on this jury; and (2) whether the Seventh Circuit violated Mr. Vasquez's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by determining that Mr. Vasquez should have been convicted without considering the effects of the district court's error on the jury that heard the case. 4.2.2012
3.26.2012 and 3.27.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-398 H.H.S. v. Fla. (1) Whether Congress had the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the minimum coverage provision. (Two hours of argument time allotted on this question.) (2) Whether the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. §7421(a). (One hour of argument time allotted on this question.) 6.28.2012
3.28.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-393 Nat'l Fed. of Ind. Business v. Sebelius Whether the Affordable Care Act must be invalidated in its entirety because it is nonseverable from the individual mandate that exceeds Congress’s limited and enumerated powers under the Constitution. (Consolidated with Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services for ninety minutes of argument on this question.) 6.28.2012
3.28.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-400 Fla. v. H.H.S. (1) Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it coerces States into accepting onerous conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress‘s spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply? (One hour of argument time allotted on this question.) (2) To what extent (if any) can the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act be severed from the remainder of the Act? (Consolidated with National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius for ninety minutes of argument on this question.) 6.28.2012

April Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
4.16.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-204 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. The petitioners – pharmaceutical sales representatives whose primary duty is to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer’s prescription drugs in appropriate cases – qualify as outside salesmen under the most reasonable interpretation of the Department of Labor’s regulations. 6.18.2012
4.17.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-5721 Hill v. U.S. The more lenient mandatory minimum provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act – which reduced the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses – apply to defendants who committed a crack cocaine crime before the Act went into effect but were sentenced after its effective date in 2010. 6.21.2012
4.17.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-5683 Dorsey v. U.S. The more lenient mandatory minimum provisions of the Fair Sentencing Act – which reduced the disparity between sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses – apply to defendants who committed a crack cocaine crime before the Act went into effect but were sentenced after its effective date in 2010. 6.21.2012
4.18.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-551 Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter The federal government must pay in full each tribe’s contract support costs incurred by a tribal contractor under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450, even if Congress has failed to appropriate sufficient funds to cover all of the contract support costs owed to all tribal contractors collectively. 6.18.2012
4.23.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-166 RadLAX v. Amalgamated Bank Debtors may not obtain confirmation of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy “cramdown” plan that proposes to sell substantially all of the debtors’ property at an auction, free and clear of the Bank’s lien, using the sale proceeds to repay the Bank, but that does not permit the Bank to credit-bid at the sale. 5.29.2012
4.24.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-246 Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish v. Patchak The federal government has waived its sovereign immunity from the respondent’s suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, in which he alleges that Section 465 of the Indian Reorganization Act did not authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire into trust property that the Band intended to use for “gaming purposes” because the Band was not a federally recognized tribe when the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934. Moreover, the respondent has prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’s acquisition of the land in question. 6.18.2012
4.24.2012
Tr.
 11-247 Salazar v. Patchak The federal government has waived its sovereign immunity from the respondent’s suit under the Administrative Procedure Act, in which he alleges that Section 465 of the Indian Reorganization Act did not authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire into trust property that the Band intended to use for “gaming purposes” because the Band was not a federally recognized tribe when the Indian Reorganization Act was enacted in 1934. Moreover, the respondent has prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’s acquisition of the land in question. 6.18.2012
4.25.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-182 Arizona v. U.S. The lower courts erred in holding that Section 2(B) of Senate Bill 1070 - which requires police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them and which allows police to stop and detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant – should not go into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated because it is not sufficiently clear that the provision is preempted. Section 3 – which makes it a state crime for someone to be in the United States without proper authorization – is preempted because Congress left no room for states to regulate in that field, or even to enhance federal prohibitions. Section 5(C) -which makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a job or work in Arizona – is preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. Section 6 – which authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country, if they have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a deportable offense – is preempted because whether and when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in the country is a question solely for the federal government. 6.25.2012

Decided without oral argument

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
10-1115 Cavazos v. Smith The Ninth Circuit exceeded its authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)when it substituted its own judgment for that of a California jury on the question whether the prosecution’s or the defense’s expert witnesses more persuasively explained the cause of a death. 10.31.2011
10-1521 KPMG LLP v. Cocchi Remanded to Florida state court for consideration of whether arbitration is required for some of the claims alleged. 11.7.2011
10-1540 Bobby v. Dixon (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit contravened the directives of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) when it abandoned the "in custody" requirement of Miranda v. Arizona and Edwards v. Arizona; (2) whether the interviewer's state of mind has any bearing on whether a suspect's statement is voluntary under the established law of Oregon v. Elstad; and (3) whether the Sixth Circuit exceeded its authority under AEDPA when it condemned the use of the "prisoner's dilemma" where the police indicate that favorable treatment will go to the first suspect who cooperates as an unconstitutionally coercive interrogation tactic. 11.07.2011
11-38 Wetzel v. Lambert The Third Circuit had failed to address the state court’s determination that the notations on the police activity sheet were “not exculpatory or impeaching” but instead “entirely ambiguous.” 2.21.2012
11-74 Hardy v. Cross The lower court’s ruling overturning a decision of an Illinois state court was inconsistent with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which “imposes a highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings and demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.” 12.12.2011
11-208 Ryburn v. Huff (1) Whether Brigham City v. Stuart merged the emergency doctrine and application of exigent circumstances for evaluating warrantless entry; (2) whether, on the facts of this case, involving a police investigation of a potential plan for a school shooting, officers were free to enter a student’s home without a warrant to prevent possible harm to themselves and others; and (4) whether, when the district court and one circuit judge concluded that the police conduct was arguably valid under another constitutional doctrine, the officers can be denied qualified immunity. 1.23.2012
11-391 Marmet Health Care Center v. Brown West Virgina's categorical prohibition of pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes is contrary to the terms and coverage of the FAA. 2.21.2012
11-394 Clarksburg Nursing Home & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Marchio West Virgina's categorical prohibition of pre-dispute agreements to arbitrate personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes is contrary to the terms and coverage of the FAA. 2.21.2012
11-845 Parker v. Matthews The Sixth Circuit’s decision setting aside two twenty-nine-year-old murder convictions is reversed because it is a textbook example of the use of federal habeas corpus review to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts, which the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) proscribes. 6.11.2012
11-1053 Coleman v. Johnson Reversed and remanded to Third Circuit because the evidence at trial was not nearly sparse enough to sustain a due process challenge (per curiam) 05.29.2012
11-1179 American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock Montana’s argument in support of the judgment below was either already rejected in Citizens United v. FCC or fails to meaningfully distinguish that case. 6.25.2012
11-1184 Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission In holding that West Virginia’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan violates the principle of “one person, one vote,” the district court misapplied the standard, set out in Karcher v. Daggett (1983), for evaluating challenges to redistricting plans and failed to afford appropriate deference to West Virginia’s reasonable exercise of its political judgment. Although West Virginia could have adopted a plan with lower variations in population among the districts, the state carried its burden to show that population deviations were necessary to achieve legitimate state objectives, such as avoiding contests between incumbents and not splitting political subdivisions. 9.25.2012

Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion