October Term 2017

View this list sorted by case name.

October Sitting

Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, No. 16-300 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the collective-bargaining provisions of the National Labor Relations Act prohibit the enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act of an agreement requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis.
Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions governing an alien's removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague.
National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, No. 16-307 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether arbitration agreements with individual employees that bar them from pursuing work-related claims on a collective or class basis in any forum are prohibited as an unfair labor practice under 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), because they limit the employees' right under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in “concerted activities” in pursuit of their “mutual aid or protection,” 29 U.S.C. § 157, and are therefore unenforceable under the savings clause of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2.
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether an agreement that requires an employer and an employee to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration, and waive class and collective proceedings, is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161 [Arg: 10.03.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204 [Arg: 10.03.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months; (2) whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months; and (3) whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, whether the length of the alien’s detention must be weighed in favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.
District of Columbia v. Wesby, No. 15-1485 [Arg: 10.04.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether police officers who found late-night partiers inside a vacant home belonging to someone else had probable cause to arrest the partiers for trespassing under the Fourth Amendment, and in particular whether, when the owner of a vacant home informs police that he has not authorized entry, an officer assessing probable cause to arrest those inside for trespassing may discredit the suspects' questionable claims of an innocent mental state; and (2) whether, even if there was no probable cause to arrest the apparent trespassers, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in this regard.
Class v. U.S., No. 16-424 [Arg: 10.04.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant's right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction.
Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Services of Chicago, No. 16-658 [Arg: 10.10.2017 Trans./Aud.; Decided 11.8.2017]

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred in treating as jurisdictional Rule 4(a)(5)(C)’s limitation on extensions of time to file a notice of appeal.
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499 [Arg: 10.11.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, categorically forecloses corporate liability.
National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, No. 16-299 [Arg: 10.11.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred when it held that it has jurisdiction under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F), the portion of the Clean Water Act's judicial review provision that requires that agency actions “in issuing or denying any permit” under Section 1342 be reviewed by the court of appeals, to decide petitions to review the waters-of-the-United-States rule, even though the rule does not “issu[e] or den[y] any permit” but instead defines the waters that fall within Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

November Sitting

Ayestas v. Davis, No. 16-6795 [Arg: 10.30.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) withholds “reasonably necessary” resources to investigate and develop an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim that state habeas counsel forfeited, where the claimant's existing evidence does not meet the ultimate burden of proof at the time the Section 3599(f) motion is made.
Wilson v. Sellers, No. 16-6855 [Arg: 10.30.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the court's decision in Harrington v. Richter silently abrogates the presumption set forth in Ylst v. Nunnemaker – that a federal court sitting in habeas proceedings should “look through” a summary state court ruling to review the last reasoned decision – as a slim majority of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held in this case, despite the agreement of both parties that the Ylst presumption should continue to apply.
U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, No. 15-1509 [Arg: 10.31.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the appropriate standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status is the de novo standard of review applied by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 7th and 10th Circuits, or the clearly erroneous standard of review adopted for the first time by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in this action.
Artis v. District of Columbia, No. 16-460 [Arg: 11.1.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the tolling provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(d) suspends the limitations period for the state-law claim while the claim is pending and for 30 days after the claim is dismissed, or whether the tolling provision does not suspend the limitations period but merely provides 30 days beyond the dismissal for the plaintiff to refile.
Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784 [Arg: 11.6.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the safe harbor of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits avoidance of a transfer made by or to a financial institution, without regard to whether the institution has a beneficial interest in the property transferred, consistent with decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 10th Circuits, but contrary to the decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 11th Circuits.
Patchak v. Zinke, No. 16-498 [Arg: 11.7.2017 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including this court's determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution's separation of powers principles.

December Sitting

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 [Arg: 11.27.2017]

Issue(s): Whether inter partes review, an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents, violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, No. 16-969 [Arg: 11.27.2017]

Issue(s): Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which provides that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner,” requires that Board to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner, or whether it allows that Board to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of only some of the patent claims challenged by the petitioner, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held.
Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439 [Arg: 11.28.2017]

Issue(s): Whether state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over covered class actions that allege only Securities Act of 1933 claims. CVSG: 05/23/2017.
Digital Realty Trust v. Somers, No. 16-1276 [Arg: 11.28.2017]

Issue(s): Whether the anti-retaliation provision for “whistleblowers” in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 extends to individuals who have not reported alleged misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission and thus fall outside the act’s definition of “whistleblower.”
Carpenter v. U.S., No. 16-402 [Arg: 11.29.2017]

Issue(s): Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.
New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-477 [Arg: 12.4.2017]

Issue(s): Whether a federal statute that prohibits adjustment or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of states in contravention of New York v. United States and Printz v. United States.
Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476 [Arg: 12.4.2017]

Issue(s): Whether a federal statute that prohibits modification or repeal of state-law prohibitions on private conduct impermissibly commandeers the regulatory power of states in contravention of New York v. United States.
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 16-534 [Arg: 12.4.2017]

Issue(s): Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1610(g) provides a freestanding attachment immunity exception that allows terror victim judgment creditors to attach and execute upon assets of foreign state sponsors of terrorism regardless of whether assets are otherwise subject to execution under Section 1610.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111 [Arg: 12.5.2017]

Issue(s): Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
Marinello v. U.S., No. 16-1144 [Arg: 12.6.2017]

Issue(s): Whether a conviction under 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct or impede the due administration of the tax laws requires proof that the defendant acted with knowledge of a pending Internal Revenue Service action.
Murphy v. Smith, No. 16-1067 [Arg: 12.6.2017]

Issue(s): Whether the parenthetical phrase “not to exceed 25 percent,” as used in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), means any amount up to 25 percent (as four circuits hold), or whether it means exactly 25 percent (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit holds).

January Sitting

Florida v. Georgia, No. 22o142 [Arg: 1.8.2018]

Issue(s): Whether Florida is entitled to equitable apportionment of the waters of the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin and appropriate injunctive relief against Georgia to sustain an adequate flow of fresh water into the Apalachicola Region. CVSG: 09/18/2014.
Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, No. 22o141 [Arg: 1.8.2018]

Issue(s): Whether New Mexico is in violation of the Rio Grande Compact and the Rio Grande Project Act, which apportion water to Rio Grande Project beneficiaries.
Byrd v. U.S., No. 16-1371 [Arg: 1.9.2018]

Issue(s): Whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter's permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.
Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027 [Arg: 1.9.2018]

Issue(s): Whether the Fourth Amendment's automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980 [Arg: 1.10.2018]

Issue(s): Whether 52 U.S.C. § 20507 permits Ohio's list-maintenance process, which uses a registered voter's voter inactivity as a reason to send a confirmation notice to that voter under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
Cox v. U.S., No. 16-1017 [Arg: 1.16.2018]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding that petitioners' claims—which asserted that a judge's service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualifies him or her from continuing to serve on either the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii)—were moot; (2) whether these judges' service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualifies them from continuing to serve on the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii); (3) whether the judges' simultaneous service on both the U.S Court of Military Commission Review and the Army or Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals violates the appointments clause; and (4) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this case and Dalmazzi v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
Dalmazzi v. U.S., No. 16-961 [Arg: 1.16.2018]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in holding that the petitioner's challenge to Judge Martin T. Mitchell's continued service on the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, after he was nominated and confirmed to the Article I U.S. Court of Military Commission Review, was moot – because his CMCR commission had not been signed until after the U.S. Air Force CCA decided her case on the merits, even though she moved for reconsideration after the commission was signed; (2) whether Judge Mitchell's service on the CMCR disqualified him from continuing to serve on the AFCCA under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii), which requires express authorization from Congress before active-duty military officers may hold a “civil office,” including positions that require “an appointment by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate”; (3) whether Judge Mitchell's simultaneous service on both the CMCR and the AFCCA violated the appointments clause; and (4) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review this case and Cox v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
Hall v. Hall, No. 16-1150 [Arg: 1.16.2018]

Issue(s): Whether the clarity Gelboim v. Bank of America gave to multidistrict cases should be extended to single district consolidated cases, so that the entry of a final judgment in only one case triggers the appeal-clock for that case.
Ortiz v. U.S., No. 16-1423 [Arg: 1.16.2018]

Issue(s): (1) Whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell's service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualified him from continuing to serve on the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii); (2) whether Judge Mitchell's simultaneous service on both the CMCR and the AFCCA violated the appointments clause; and (3) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review Dalmazzi v. United States and Cox v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255 [Arg: 1.17.2018]

Issue(s): Whether it is unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused's guilt over the accused's express objection.
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 16-1362 [Arg: 1.17.2018]

Issue(s): Whether service advisors at car dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A) from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime-pay requirements.

Decided without oral argument

Kernan v. Cuero, No. 16-1468 [ Decided 11.6.2017]

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals erred when it held that “federal law” as interpreted by the Supreme Court “clearly” establishes that specific performance of the lower sentence that the parties had originally expected is constitutionally required.
Dunn v. Madison, No. 17-193 [ Decided 11.6.2017]

Holding: Because the state court’s determinations of law and fact were not “so lacking in justification” as to give rise to error “beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement,” Vernon Madison’s claim to federal habeas relief must fail.

Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140

Issue(s): Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Currier v. Virginia, No. 16-1348

Issue(s): Whether a defendant who consents to severance of multiple charges into sequential trials loses his right under the double jeopardy clause to the issue-preclusive effect of an acquittal.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435

Issue(s): Whether Minnesota statute Section 211B.11, which broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place, is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.
Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454

Issue(s): Whether, under the “rule of reason,” the government's showing that American Express' anti-steering provisions stifle price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform suffices to prove anti-competitive effects and thereby shifts to American Express the burden of establishing any pro-competitive benefits from the provisions.
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466

Issue(s): Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt, No. 16-1495

Issue(s): Whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when statements are used at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial.
Rosales-Mireles v. U.S., No. 16-9493

Issue(s): Whether, in order to meet the standard for plain error review set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v. Olano that "[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,’” it is necessary, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit required, that the error be one that “would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge.”
U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2

Issue(s): Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider's control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, No. 17-21

Issue(s): Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.
Dahda v. U.S., No. 17-43

Issue(s): Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge's territorial jurisdiction.
Term Snapshot
Awards