The Court issued additional orders from its February 26 Conference on Monday. There were no new grants, and there were three requests for the views of the Solicitor General. On Tuesday the Court released its opinions in Lockhart v. United States and Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The Court also heard oral arguments on Monday and Tuesday mornings and will hear oral arguments again Wednesday at 10 a.m. The calendar for the February sitting is available here. On Friday the Justices will meet for their March 4 Conference; our list of "petitions to watch" for that Conference will be available soon.

• United States v. Texas
  Whether the Obama administration has the authority to issue its new deferred-action policy for undocumented immigrants, whether the states have standing to challenge the policy at all, whether DHS was required to notify the public about the proposed policy and provide opportunity for the public to weigh in on it, and whether the policy violates the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause,” which requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
• Zubik v. Burwell
  Does the availability of a regulatory method for nonprofit religious employers to comply with the HHS contraceptive mandate eliminate the substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of RFRA that the Court recognized in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.?
• Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
  Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest.
• Evenwel v. Abbott
  Does the "one-person, one-vote" principle require states to use voter population, as opposed to total population, when drawing state legislative districts?
• Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
  Are public-sector "agency shop" agreements unconstitutional under the First Amendment?
• Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
  Does the use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions by the University of Texas violate the Equal Protection Clause?

Conference of March 4

• Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple (1) Whether, where a design patent includes unprotected non-ornamental features, a district court should be required to limit that patent to its protected ornamental scope; and (2) whether, where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, an award of infringer’s profits should be limited to those profits attributable to the component.

More Petitions »

• Tributes to Justice Antonin Scalia
• Justice Scalia passes away
• United States v. Texas symposium
• Whole Woman's Health v. Cole symposium
• Zubik v. Burwell symposium
• Fisher II symposium
• Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
• One person, one vote and Evenwel