Breaking News :

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.		 09-958 Douglas v. In. Liv'g Ctr. of S. Cal. (1) Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A) of the Medicaid Act by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates; and (2) whether a state law reducing Medicaid reimbursement rates may be held preempted by Section 1396a(a)(30)(A) based on requirements that do not appear in the text of the statute.
10.3.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 09-1158 Douglas v. Cal. Pharm. Ass'n Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates.
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
10.03.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-283 Douglas v. S.R. M. Hospital Whether Medicaid recipients and providers may maintain a cause of action under the Supremacy Clause to enforce § 1396a(a)(30)(A) by asserting that the provision preempts a state law reducing reimbursement rates.
10.04.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1001 Martinez v. Ryan Whether a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first post-conviction proceeding, has a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of first post-conviction counsel specifically with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim
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
10.04.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-680 Howes v. Fields The Court unanimously held that 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
10.05.2011
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.		 10-507 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
10.11.2011
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
10.12.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-945 Florence v. Board of Freeholders Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless strip search whenever an individual is arrested, including for minor offenses.
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

November Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
10.31.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-209 Lafler v. Cooper (1) Whether a defendant seeking habeas is entitled to relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel where counsel’s deficient advice caused the defendant to reject a plea bargain in which the defendant had no vested right, and where the rejection did not deny the defendant a fair trial. (2) What remedy, if any, should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures.
10.31.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-444 Missouri v. Frye Can a defendant who validly pleads guilty assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging that, but for counsel's error in failing to communicate a plea offer, he would have pleaded guilty with more favorable terms? What remedy, if any, should be provided for ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargain negotiations if the defendant was later convicted and sentenced pursuant to constitutionally adequate procedures?
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
11.01.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-788 Rehberg v. Paulk Whether a government official who acts as a complaining witness by presenting perjured testimony against an innocent citizen is entitled to absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim for civil damages.
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, the Court held, 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.		 10-699 M.B.Z. v. Clinton (1) Whether the political question doctrine deprives a federal court of jurisdiction to enforce a federal statute that explicitly directs the Secretary of State how to record the birthplace of an American citizen on a Consular Report of Birth Abroad and on a passport; and (2) whether Section 214 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2003, impermissibly infringes the President's power to recognize foreign sovereigns.
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
11.8.2011
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
11.8.2011
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
11.9.2011
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
11.9.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-879 Kurns v. Railroad Friction Products Did Congress intend the Federal Railroad Safety Acts to preempt state-law based tort lawsuits?

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.
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.		 10-1261 Credit Suisse Securities v. Simmonds Does the two-year statute of limitations established in Section 16(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, which requires statutory insiders to disgorge profits from short-swing transactions in publicly traded issuer securities, begin to run if the targeted insider has failed to comply with its obligations under Section 16(a) of the Act to disclose short-swing trading activity in reports filed with the SEC? (Roberts, C.J., recused).
11.29.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-875 Hall v. U.S. Does Section 1399 of the Internal Revenue Code, which provides that a bankruptcy filing other than an individual Chapter 7 or individual Chapter 11 does not give rise to a "separate taxable entity," mean that the capital gains income tax incurred as a result of the sale of a family farm by petitioners, who had filed a Chapter 12 bankruptcy petition, is not a Bankruptcy Code administrative expense owed by the bankruptcy estate and payable under a bankruptcy reorganization plan?
11.30.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-7387 Setser v. U.S. Whether the district court erred by directing that petitioner's federal sentence be served consecutively to a state sentence that had not yet been imposed.
11.30.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1024 FAA v. Cooper Whether a plaintiff who alleges only mental and emotional injuries can establish "actual damages" within the meaning of the civil remedies provision of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(g)(4)(A). (Kagan, J., recused).
12.5.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-704 Messerschmidt v. Millender (1) Whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they obtained a facially valid warrant to search for firearms, firearm-related materials, and gang-related items in the residence of a gang member and felon who had threatened to kill his girlfriend and fired a sawed-off shotgun at her? (2) Whether United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984), and Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), should be reconsidered or clarified?
12.5.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-844 Caraco v. Novo Nordisk Whether the counterclaim provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act applies when (1) there is an approved method of using the drug that the patent does not claim, and (2) the brand submits patent information to the FDA that misstates the patent's scope, requiring correct[ion].
12.6.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-8505 Williams v. Illinois Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts violates the Confrontation Clause, when the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts.
12.6.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1265 Martel v. Clair Whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is entitled to replace his court-appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer just because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence.
12.7.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1150 Mayo v. Prometheus Laboratories Whether 35 U.S.C. § 101 is satisfied by a patent claim that covers observed correlations between blood test results and patient health, so that the claim effectively preempts all uses of the naturally occurring correlations, simply because well-known methods used to administer prescription drugs and test blood may involve transformations of body chemistry.
12.7.2011
Tr.
Aud.		 10-218 PPL Montana, LLC v. Montana Whether the constitutional test for determining whether a section of a river is navigable for title purposes requires a trial court to determine, based on evidence, whether the relevant stretch of the river was navigable at the time the state joined the Union.

January Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
1.9.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1062 Sackett v. EPA (1) Whether petitioners may seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704; and (2) whether, if not, petitioner's inability to seek pre-enforcement judicial review of the administrative compliance order violates their rights under the Due Process Clause?
1.9.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-713 Perry v. Perez The power of a federal court to impose a new legislative districting plan for federal elections, when the state’s plan has not obtained required preclearance in Washington. 1.20.2012
1.9.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1219 Kappos v. Hyatt Whether a plaintiff, who is appealing the denial of an application of a patent by commencing a civil action against the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in a federal district court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145, may introduce new evidence that could have been presented to the agency in the first instance; and 2) whether, when new evidence is introduced under Section 145, the district court may decide de novo the factual questions to which the evidence pertains, without giving deference to the prior decision of the PTO.
1.09.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-714 Perry v. Davis The power of a federal court to impose a new legislative districting plan for the election of the Texas Senate, when the state’s plan has not obtained required preclearance in Washington.
1.09.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-715 Perry v. Perez The power of a federal court to impose a new legislative districting plan, for state and federal elections, when a state legislature's plan has not obtained required preclearance in Washington. 1.20.2012
1.10.2012
Tr.
 10-1293 FCC v. Fox Whether the Federal Communications Commission's current indecency-enforcement regime violates the First or Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Sotomayor, J., recused).
1.10.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1121 Knox v. SEIU (1) May a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, condition employment on the payment of a special union assessment intended solely for political and ideological expenditures without first providing a notice that includes information about that assessment and provides an opportunity to object to its exaction? (2) May a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, condition continued public employment on the payment of union agency fees for purposes of financing political expenditures for ballot measures?
1.11.2012
Tr.
 10-1016 Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals Whether Congress constitutionally abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it passed the self-care leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act.
1.11.2012
Tr.
 10-1399 Roberts v. Sea-Land Services Whether the phrase “those newly awarded compensation during such period” in Longshore Act § 6(c), applicable to all classes of disability except permanent total, can be read to mean “those first entitled to compensation during such period,” regardless of when it is awarded.
1.17.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1018 Filarsky v. Delia Whether a lawyer retained to work with government employees in conducting an internal affairs investigation is precluded from asserting qualified immunity solely because of his status as a private lawyer rather than a government employee.
1.17.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-139 U.S. v. Home Concrete & Supply (1) Whether an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis in sold property is an omi[ssion] from gross income that can trigger the extended six-year assessment period; and (2) whether a final regulation promulgated by the Department of the Treasury, which reflects the IRS's view that an understatement of gross income attributable to an overstatement of basis can trigger the extended six-year assessment period, is entitled to judicial deference.
1.18.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1542 Holder v. Gutierrez (1) Whether a parent's years of lawful permanent resident status can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(1)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years; and (2) whether a parent's years of residence after lawful admission to the United States can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status.
1.18.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1543 Holder v. Sawyers Whether a parent's years of residence after lawful admission to the United States can be imputed to an alien who resided with that parent as an unemancipated minor, for the purpose of satisfying 8 U.S.C. 1229b(a)(2)'s requirement that the alien seeking cancellation of removal have "resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status."
1.18.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1211 Vartelas v. Holder Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), which removes a lawful permanent resident of his right, under Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U.S. 449 (1963), to make “innocent, casual, and brief” trips abroad without fear that he will be denied reentry, applies retroactively to a guilty plea taken prior to the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.

February Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
2.21.2012
Tr.
 10-1472 Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd. Whether costs incurred in translating written documents are compensation of interpreters and may therefore be awarded to the prevailing party in a federal lawsuit under 28 U.S.C. § 1920(6).
2.21.2012
Tr.
 10-1042 Freeman v. Quicken Loans Inc. Whether Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act prohibits a real estate settlement services provider from charging an unearned fee only if the fee is divided between two or more parties.
2.22.2012
 10-1320 Blueford v. Arkansas Whether, if a jury deadlocks on a lesser-included offense, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the reprosecution of a greater offense after a jury announces that it has voted against guilt on the greater offense.
2.22.2012
 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.
2.27.2012
 10-9995 Wood v. Milyard (1) Whether an appellate court has the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) statute of limitations defense; and (2) whether the state’s declaration before the district court that it “will not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of Wood’s habeas petition,” amounts to a deliberate waiver of any statute of limitations defense the state may have had.
2.27.2012
 11-45 Elgin v. Dep’t of the Treasury Whether the Civil Service Reform Act impliedly precludes federal district courts from having jurisdiction over constitutional claims for equitable relief brought by federal employees.
2.28.2012
 10-1491 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (1) Whether the issue of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is a merits question or instead an issue of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether corporations are immune from tort liability for violations of the law of nations such as torture, extrajudicial executions or genocide may instead be sued in the same manner as any other private party defendant under the ATS for such egregious violations.
2.28.2012
 11-88 Mohamad v. Rajoub Whether the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 permits actions against defendants that are not natural persons.
2.29.2012
 10-1032 Magner v. Gallagher (1) Whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act; and, if so (2) what test should be used to analyze them.
2.29.2012
 11-161 Armour v. Indianapolis Whether the Equal Protection Clause precludes a local taxing authority from refusing to refund payments made by those who have paid their assessments in full, while forgiving the obligations of identically situated taxpayers who chose to pay over a multi-year installment plan.

March Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
3.19.2012
 11-159 Astrue v. Capato Whether a child who was conceived after the death of a biological parent, but who cannot inherit personal property from that biological parent under applicable state intestacy law, is eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.
3.19.2012
 11-94 Southern Union Company v. U.S. Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendment principles that this Court established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny, apply to the imposition of criminal fines.
3.20.2012
 10-9647 Jackson v. Hobbs Whether imposing a sentence of life without possibility of parole on an offender who was fourteen at the time he committed capital murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
3.20.2012
 10-9646 Miller v. Alabama Whether imposing a sentence of life without possibility of parole on an offender who was fourteen at the time he committed capital murder constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
3.21.2012
 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.
3.21.2012
 11-262 Reichle v. Howards (1) Whether the existence of probable cause to make an arrest bars a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim; and (2) whether the court below erred by denying qualified and absolute immunity to petitioners where probable cause existed for respondent's arrest, the arrest comported with the Fourth Amendment, and the denial of immunity threatens to interfere with the split-second, life-or-death decisions of Secret Service agents protecting the President and Vice President.
3.26.2012 and 3.27.2012
 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.)
3.28.2012
 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.)
3.28.2012
 11-400 Fla. v. Dept. Health and Human Services (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.)

April Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
4.16.2012
 11-204 Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (1) Whether deference is owed to the Secretary of Labor's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption and related regulations; and (2) whether the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.
4.17.2012
 11-5683 Dorsey v. U.S. Did the Seventh Circuit err when, in conflict with the First and Third Circuits, it held that the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 does not apply to all defendants sentenced after its enactment?
4.17.2012
 11-5721 Hill v. U.S. Whether the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 applies in an initial sentencing proceeding that takes place on or after the statute’s effective date if the offense occurred before that date.
4.18.2012
 11-551 Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter Whether the government is required to pay all of the contract support costs incurred by a tribal contractor under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq., where Congress has imposed an express statutory cap on the appropriations available to pay such costs and the Secretary cannot pay all such costs for all tribal contractors without exceeding the statutory cap.
4.23.2012
 11-166 RadLAX v. Amalgamated Bank Whether a debtor may pursue a Chapter 11 plan that proposes to sell assets free of liens without allowing the secured creditor to credit bid, but instead providing it with the indubitable equivalent of its claim under Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code.
4.24.2012
 11-246 Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish v. Patchak (1) Whether the Quiet Title Act and its reservation of the United States' sovereign immunity in suits involving "trust or restricted Indian lands" apply to all suits concerning land in which the United States "claims an interest," 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(a), or whether they apply only when the plaintiff claims title to the land; and (2) whether prudential standing to sue under federal law can be based on either (i) the plaintiff's ability to "police" an agency's compliance with the law or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based.
4.24.2012
 11-247 Salazar v. Patchak (1) Whether 5 U.S.C. § 702 waives the sovereign immunity of the United States from a suit challenging its title to lands that it holds in trust for an Indian Tribe; and (2) whether a private individual who alleges injuries resulting from the operation of a gaming facility on Indian trust land has prudential standing to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the Interior to take title to that land in trust, on the ground that the decision was not authorized by the Indian Reorganization Act.
4.25.2012
 11-182 Arizona v. U.S. Whether federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement and impliedly preempt four provisions of S.B. 1070 on their face. (Kagan, J., recused.)

Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion