|
11-465 |
Johnson v. Williams |
(1) Whether a habeas petitioner’s claim has been “adjudicated on the merits” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) where the state court denied relief in an explained decision but did not expressly acknowledge a federal-law basis for the claim; and (2) whether, under § 2254, a federal habeas court (a) may grant relief on the ground that the petitioner had a Sixth Amendment right to retain a biased juror on the panel and (b) may reject a state court’s finding of juror bias because it disagrees with the finding and the reasons stated for it, even where the finding was rationally supported by evidence in the state-court record. |
|
|
11-192 |
U.S. v. Bormes |
Whether the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2),
waives the sovereign immunity of the United States with
respect to damages actions for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. |
|
|
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; (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; and (3) whether and under what circumstances the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, allows courts to recognize a cause of action for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a sovereign other than the United States. |
|
|
11-564 |
Florida v. Jardines |
Whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause? |
|
|
11-184 |
Kloeckner v. Solis |
When the Merit Systems Protection Board for federal employees decides a mixed case -- that is, one containing both disputed termination and unlawful discrimination claims -- without determining the merits of the discrimination claim, does the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or, alternatively, a district court have jurisdiction? |
|
|
11-345 |
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin |
Whether this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger,
permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. (Kagan, J., recused) |
|
|
11-626 |
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida |
Whether a floating structure that is indefinitely
moored, receives power and other utilities from shore,
and is not intended to be used in maritime transportation
or commerce constitutes a “vessel” under
1 U.S.C. § 3, thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction. |
|
|
11-218 |
Tibbals v. Carter |
1) Whether capital prisoners possess a “right to competence” in federal habeas proceedings under Rees v. Peyton;
and 2) whether a federal district court can order an indefinite stay of a federal habeas proceeding under Rees. |
|
|
10-930 |
Ryan v. Gonzales |
Does 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2) “which provides that an indigent capital state inmate pursuing federal habeas relief "shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys" entitle a death row inmate to stay the federal habeas proceedings he initiated if he is not competent to assist counsel? |
|
|
11-817 |
Florida v. Harris |
Whether an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle. |
|
|
11-702 |
Moncrieffe v. Holder |
Whether a conviction under a provision of state law that encompasses but is not limited to the distribution of a small amount of marijuana without remuneration constitutes an aggravated felony, notwithstanding that the record of conviction does not establish that the alien was convicted of conduct that would constitute a federal felony. |
|
|
11-597 |
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. U.S. |
Whether government actions that impose
recurring flood invasions must continue
permanently to take property within the
meaning of the Takings Clause. |
|
|
11-697 |
Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons |
How do Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the copyright’s owner, and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy “lawfully made under this title” to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner’s permission, apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States? |
|
|
11-820 |
Chaidez v. U.S. |
Whether the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation, applies to persons whose convictions became final before its announcement. |
|
|
11-1025 |
Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA |
Whether respondents lack Article III standing to seek prospective relief because they proffered no evidence that the United States would imminently acquire their international communications using 50 U.S.C. 1881a-authorized surveillance and did not show that an injunction prohibiting Section 1881a-authorized surveillance would likely redress their purported injuries. |
|
