|
12-682 |
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action |
Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions. (Kagan, J., recused.) |
|
|
12-417 |
Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corporation |
What constitutes “changing clothes” within the meaning of Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act? |
|
|
12-88 |
Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice |
(1) Whether the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”), 15 U.S.C.
§§ 77p(b), 78bb(f)(1), prohibits private class actions
based on state law only where the alleged purchase
or sale of a covered security is “more than
tangentially related” to the “heart, crux or
gravamen” of the alleged fraud; and (2) whether the SLUSA precludes a class action in which
the defendant is sued for aiding and abetting fraud,
but a non-party, rather than the defendant, made
the only alleged misrepresentation in connection
with a covered securities transaction. |
|
|
12-536 |
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission |
(1) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest as applied to contributions to national party committees; and (2) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(B), are unconstitutional facially for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest; and (3) Whether the biennial limits on contributions to non-candidate committees are unconstitutionally too low, as applied and facially; and (4) Whether the biennial limit on contributions to candidate committees, 2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)(A), is unconstitutional for lacking a constitutionally cognizable interest. |
|
|
12-815 |
Sprint Communications Company v. Jacobs |
Whether the Eighth Circuit erred by concluding that Younger abstention is warranted not only when there is a related state proceeding that is “coercive” but also when there is a related state proceeding that is, instead, “remedial.” |
|
|
12-623 |
U.S. Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council |
(1) Whether respondent Pacific Rivers Council (PRC) has Article III standing to challenge the Forest Service’s 2004 programmatic amendments to the forest plans governing management of 11 Sierra Nevada Forests when PRC failed to establish that any of its members was imminently threatened with cognizable harm because he or she would come into contact with any parcel of forest affected by the amendments; (2) whether PRC’s challenge to the Forest Service’s programmatic amendments is ripe when PRC failed to identify any site-specific project authorized under the amended plan provisions to which PRC objects; and (3) whether the National Environmental Policy Act required the Forest Service, when adopting the programmatic amendments, to analyze every type of environmental effect that any project ultimately authorized under the amendments throughout the 11 affected forests might have if it was reasonably possible to do so when the programmatic amendments were adopted, even though any future site-specific project would require its own appropriate environmental analysis before going forward. |
|
|
12-86 |
Willis of Colorado Inc. v. Troice |
Whether a covered state law class action complaint that unquestionably alleges “a” misrepresentation “in connection with” the purchase or sale of a security covered by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act nonetheless can escape the application of SLUSA by including other allegations that are farther removed from a covered securities transaction. |
|
|
12-574 |
Walden v. Fiore |
(1) Whether due process permits a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant whose sole “contact” with the forum state is his knowledge that the plaintiff has connections to that state; and (2) whether the judicial district where the plaintiff suffered injury is a district “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred” for purposes of establishing venue under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) even if the defendant’s alleged acts and omissions all occurred in another district. |
|
|
12-562 |
U.S. v. Woods |
(1) Whether Section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code, which prescribes a penalty for an underpayment of federal income tax that is “attributable to” an overstatement of basis in property, applies to an underpayment resulting from a determination that a transaction lacks economic substance because the sole purpose of the transaction was to generate a tax loss by artificially inflating the taxpayer’s basis in property. (2) Whether the district court had jurisdiction in
this case under 26 U.S.C. §6226 to consider the substantial
valuation misstatement penalty. |
|
|
12-872 |
Madigan v. Levin |
Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in holding, in an acknowledged departure from the rule in at least four other circuits, that state and local government employees may avoid the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s comprehensive remedial regime by bringing age discrimination claims directly under the Equal Protection Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. |
|
|
12-609 |
Kansas v. Cheever |
Whether, when a criminal defendant who affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, the state violates the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant. |
|
|
12-7515 |
Burrage v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the crime of distribution of drugs causing death under 21 U.S.C. § 841 is a strict liability crime, without a foreseeability or proximate cause requirement; and (2) whether a person can be convicted for distribution of heroin causing death utilizing jury instructions which allow a conviction when the heroin that was distributed “contributed to,” death by “mixed drug intoxication,” but was not the sole cause of death of a person. |
|
|
12-7892 |
Burnside v. Walters |
Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in holding – in conflict with all eleven other
federal circuit courts of appeals – that the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), prohibits indigent plaintiffs from amending their complaints. |
|
|
12-158 |
Bond v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope
of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations; and (2) whether the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, 18 U.S.C. § 229, can be interpreted not to reach ordinary poisoning cases, which have been adequately handled by state and local authorities since the Framing, in order to avoid the difficult constitutional questions involving the scope of and continuing vitality of this Court’s decision in Missouri v. Holland. |
|
|
12-414 |
Burt v. Titlow |
(1) Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing respondent to maintain his claim of innocence; (2) whether a convicted defendant’s subjective testimony that he would have accepted a plea but for ineffective assistance, is, standing alone, sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the plea; and (3) whether Lafler v. Cooper always requires a state trial court to resentence a defendant who shows a reasonable probability that he would have accepted a plea offer but for ineffective assistance, and to do so in such a way as to “remedy” the violation of the defendant’s constitutional right. |
|
|
12-79 |
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice |
(1) Whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) precludes a state-law class action alleging a scheme of fraud that involves misrepresentations about transactions in SLUSA-covered securities; and (2) whether SLUSA precludes class actions asserting that defendants aided and abetted SLUSA-covered securities fraud when the defendants themselves did not make misrepresentations about the purchase or sale of SLUSA-covered securities. |
|
|
12-464 |
Kaley v. U.S. |
Whether, when a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order freezes assets needed by a criminal defendant to retain counsel of choice, the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a pre-trial, adversarial hearing at which the defendant may challenge the evidentiary support and legal theory of the underlying charges. |
|
|
12-729 |
Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. |
When should a statute of limitations accrue for judicial review of an disability adverse benefit determination under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act? |
|
|
11-965 |
DaimlerChrysler AG v. Bauman |
Whether it violates due process for a court to exercise general personal jurisdiction
over a foreign corporation based solely on the
fact that an indirect corporate subsidiary performs
services on behalf of the defendant in the forum
state. |
|
|
12-929 |
Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court |
(1) Whether the Court’s decision in Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. changed the standard for enforcement of clauses that designate an alternative federal forum, limiting review of such clauses to a discretionary, balancing-of-conveniences analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); and (2) whether district courts should allocate the burdens of proof among parties seeking to enforce or to avoid a forum-selection clause. |
|
Submit Event
