Court releases December calendar
Today the Supreme Court released the oral argument calendar for its December sitting, which begins on Monday, November 26. The December sitting contains some of the highest-profile cases granted (at least so far) for this term, including Apple v. Pepper, in which the justices will consider whether customers who purchased iPhone apps from Apple’s App Store can bring an antitrust case against Apple; Timbs v. Indiana, in which the justices will determine whether the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines applies to the states; and Gamble v. United States, in which the court has been asked to overrule the “separate sovereign” exception to the Constitution’s double jeopardy clause, which allows two “separate sovereigns” – for example, the federal government and a state – to prosecute a defendant for the same conduct.
The full schedule for cases to be argued in the December sitting, along with a brief summary of the issues presented in the cases not described above, follows the jump.
Apple v. Pepper (Monday, Nov. 26)
Nieves v. Bartlett (Monday, Nov. 26): Whether probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under federal civil rights laws
Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert (Tuesday, Nov. 27): Whether equitable exceptions apply to mandatory claim-processing rules and therefore excuse a failure to timely file within the deadline set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f)
Carpenter v. Murphy (Tuesday, Nov. 27): Whether the 1866 territorial boundaries of the Creek Nation within the former Indian territory of eastern Oklahoma constitute an “Indian reservation” today
Timbs v. Indiana (Wednesday, Nov. 28)
Dawson v. Steager (Monday, Dec. 3): Whether the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity bars West Virginia from exempting the retirement benefits for some of its own law-enforcement officials from state taxes without providing the same exemption for the retirement benefits of former employees of the U.S. Marshals Service
Lorenzo v. SEC (Monday, Dec. 3): Whether a misstatement claim that does not meet the requirements outlined in the Supreme Court’s cases can instead be pursued as a fraudulent-scheme claim
Biestek v. Berryhill (Tuesday, Dec. 4): Whether a vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of “other work” available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert does not provide the applicant with the underlying data on which that testimony is premised
Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (Tuesday, Dec. 4): Whether, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an inventor’s sale of an invention to a third party that is obligated to keep the invention confidential qualifies as prior art for purposes of determining the patentability of the invention
Gamble v. United States (Wednesday, Dec. 5)
This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.