Skip to content

A petition for certiorari, or cert petition, is a legal brief filed in the Supreme Court asking the justices to review (and ultimately overturn) a lower court ruling. In a typical term, the justices receive over 8,000 cert petitions and grant between 60 and 80 of these. The justices typically decide whether to grant or reject a petition at approximately two dozen private conferences, which generally take place on either Thursday or Friday, depending on the time of year; they then usually release a list of orders from that conference, including an announcement of which petitions for review have been granted or denied, the following Monday. All of the cases which have so far been granted for the October 2025-26 term can be found here. 

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference (17)

This category consists of petitions that the justices have considered at at least one conference and decided to consider again at their next conference. We provide these cases first because, for more than a decade, the court has had a general practice of agreeing to hear a case only after it has "relisted" the case at least once. In other words, these petitions may have the strongest chance of being granted.

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
24-1099 Smith v. Scott (1) Whether, viewing the facts from the officers’ perspective at the time, the officers acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished; and (2) whether the panel erred in denying qualified immunity where no case clearly established that pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the Fourth Amendment.

Times Relisted: 11
24-1155 Vincent v. Bondi Whether the Second Amendment allows the federal government to permanently disarm petitioner, who has one 17-year-old nonviolent felony conviction for trying to pass a bad check.

Times Relisted: 6
24-1268 Reed v. Goertz Whether Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as authoritatively construed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, violates due process by arbitrarily denying prisoners access to postconviction DNA testing, rendering illusory prisoners’ state-created right to prove their innocence through newly discovered evidence.

Times Relisted: 5
25-29 Villarreal v. Alaniz (1) Whether it obviously violates the First Amendment to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer; and (2) whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment, or whether qualified immunity shields those officials.

Times Relisted: 4
25-49 Sittenfeld v. U.S. Whether, when the government alleges bribery based solely on lawful campaign contributions, the defendant may be convicted based on evidence that is ambiguous as to whether the public official conditioned any official act on the campaign contributions.

Times Relisted: 4
25-77 Foote v. Ludlow School Committee Whether a public school violates parents’ constitutional rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, the school encourages a student to transition to a new “gender” or participates in that process.

Times Relisted: 6
25-153 Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington Whether ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds are “Arms” presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Times Relisted: 5
25-170 Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.

Times Relisted: 4
25-198 Duncan v. Bonta (1) Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause.

Times Relisted: 5
25-227 Poore v. U.S. Whether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor v. Wilkie and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo constrain the deference courts may accord the Sentencing Commission's interpretation of its own rules via commentary.

Times Relisted: 3
25-238 Viramontes v. Cook County Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

Times Relisted: 5
25-248 District of Columbia v. R.W. (1) Whether a court assessing the existence of reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment may exclude a fact known to the officer, or instead must assess all the evidence when weighing the totality of the circumstances; and (2) whether, under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the officer in this case had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.

Times Relisted: 3
25-297 Zorn v. Linton Whether the Second Circuit’s qualified immunity analysis conflicts with this court’s repeated instruction that courts must define rights with specificity and look for close factual analogues in determining whether a Fourth Amendment right is clearly established.

Times Relisted: 5
25-382 Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission Whether Oklahoma may tax the income of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizen who lives and works within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation that McGirt v. Oklahoma held remains Indian country.

Times Relisted: 3
25-430 Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga Whether dismissal of a claim after assertion of the state-secrets privilege requires a district court to adjudicate the merits of the claim using the privileged information where the privileged information is relevant to a defense.

Times Relisted: 3
25-457 Johnson v. High Desert State Prison Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) requires each incarcerated plaintiff filing in forma pauperis to pay the full amount of a filing fee whether or not he is filing a joint civil action with other plaintiffs.

Times Relisted: 3
25-5434 Thompson v. U.S. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s lifetime ban on firearm possession for all individuals previously convicted of a felony violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied to the petitioner.

Times Relisted: 6

Petitions We're Watching for the Next Conference (5)

This category consists of petitions that the justices will consider at the next conference that we believe have a decent chance of being granted (usually after being relisted at least once). The factors that we consider in deciding whether to include a petition on this list include the importance and potential impact of the question presented by the petition, whether the courts of appeals appear to be divided on that question, whether the case appears to be a good candidate for the court's review (there are not procedural issues or irregularities), and whether there are "friend of the court" briefs filed in support of the petition.

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
25-559 Cracker Barrel Old Country Store v. Harrington Whether a district court may authorize notice inviting joinder to a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action before a plaintiff shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the members of the collective receiving notice are “similarly situated” to the named plaintiff within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) – and if not, what showing must be made before this notice may be authorized.
25-534 Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Whether a federal district court that has taken personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action must exclude from the collective action all opt-in plaintiffs whose claims arose outside the forum state.
25-532 Snow v. Wiertella (1) Whether the Sixth Circuit departed from this court’s decision in Farmer v. Brennan in denying qualified immunity to petitioners, despite the lack of evidence that petitioners had actual knowledge of the substantial risk of serious harm, because they failed to act on information suggesting the need for medication at some point in the future; (2) whether the Sixth Circuit departed from Farmer by finding that a medical response that creates a brief deprivation of a commonplace medication, unnecessary to staving off any apparently imminent patient risk, is unreasonable and runs afoul of the Constitution; and (3) whether the Sixth Circuit departed from this court’s decisions in Taylor v. Barkes and Mullenix v. Luna, and numerous other cases by considering clearly established law at too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case.
25-484 Wells v. Texas (1) Whether law enforcement’s collection of digital location-history data pursuant to the typical three-step geofence warrant violates the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the exclusionary rule should apply to evidence derived from the geofence warrant.
25-337 City of Huntington Beach v. Newsom (1) Whether the Constitution categorically denies a local government any capacity to invoke it against its state, without first determining – by reference to state law and the nature of the claim – the entity’s status within the state’s constitutional structure; and (2) whether elected local officials may invoke the First Amendment against the state when state law compels them, in their official roles, to make a public statement they do not believe.

Featured Petitions (37)

This category consists of petitions which have not (yet) been scheduled to be heard at a particular conference, but which we believe (for the same reasons as the list of "Petitions We're Watching for the Next Conference") have a decent chance of eventually being granted.

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
25-774 Johnson v. U.S. Whether police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they use a drug detection canine to sniff the door of an apartment home in a multi-unit building to determine whether there is contraband inside.
25-767 Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges (1) Whether the decision below — in which the court of appeals held, without notice to or briefing by the parties, that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 does not preclude suit in district court when “a factual record” shows that the CSRA is not “function[ing] as intended” — should be summarily reversed for violating the party-presentation principle; and (2) whether the decision below should be summarily reversed for failing to adhere to this court’s precedents holding that the CSRA generally precludes challenges to federal personnel actions in district court.
25-668 Andrews v. U.S. Whether the Second Circuit was correct to uphold Clean Water Act authority over wetlands that are not “as a practical matter indistinguishable” from covered waters.
25-666 Castro v. Guevara Whether a trial court’s determination that a child is “well settled” is subject to de novo review, or whether it is reviewed for clear error.
25-627 Macy’s Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (1) Whether an employer’s practice that has no noted effect on employees’ collective-bargaining rights and is not motivated by anti-union animus is inherently destructive of union rights and violates the National Labor Relations Act; and (2) whether the National Labor Relations Board has the statutory or constitutional authority to order employers to pay “any … direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” their employees incur “as a result of” an unlawful labor practice.
25-625 Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund (1) Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any compensable injury in fact; and (2) whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when a class relies on representative evidence to try to prove an individualized reliance issue that is a necessary element of each plaintiff’s claim.
25-594 Crockett v. Krueger (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity to the Petitioner law enforcement officers on the issue of excessive force without conducting an individualized qualified immunity analysis, instead engaging in a collective qualified immunity analysis which considered the aggregate actions of multiple officers at the scene; (2) whether, in denying qualified immunity the 10th Circuit evaluated whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at an impermissibly high level of generality; and (3) whether the existing law would make it clear to a reasonable law enforcement officer when a suspect is “effectively subdued” such that using further force against them would be objectively unreasonable.
25-588 Summers v. Montana Whether a driver who is lawfully stopped for a traffic infraction remains seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when the officer concludes the purpose of the traffic stop, but prolongs the stop by immediately questioning the driver on unrelated matters.
25-582 Whitmer v. Enbridge Energy, LP Whether a state is the real party in interest, and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity, where a private plaintiff sues state officials in federal court for relief that would diminish, but not necessarily extinguish, the state’s ownership and control of its sovereign lands.
25-576 Buyer v. U.S. Whether a stock trading on an exchange whose physical headquarters is located in Manhattan suffices to establish venue in the Southern District of New York for insider-trading charges related to that stock.
25-573 Trump v. Carroll (1) Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 415 overrides Rule 403’s requirement to balance the probative value of temporally remote propensity evidence against its prejudicial effect before such evidence can be admitted?; (2) Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 413(d) authorizes the admission of temporally remote propensity evidence that the defendant committed the “crime” of “sexual assault” when the alleged prior act did not constitute a crime or a sexual assault?; and (3) Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) permits the admission of “modus operandi” or “corroboration” evidence of prior “bad acts” without establishing a non-propensity purpose of the evidence, such as identity, absence of mistake, or another enumerated exception in Rule 404(b)(2)?
25-541 Schoenthal v. Raoul Whether Illinois’ flat ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
25-521 Google LLC v. Epic Games (1) Whether under the Rule of Reason, a three-step, burden-shifting framework, an antitrust plaintiff is required to prove that less restrictive alternatives could accomplish the procompetitive benefits of the challenged conduct or whether there is no such requirement; (2) whether a court may impose a duty on an antitrust defendant to deal directly with its competitors without first determining that such court-mandated dealings will remedy the consequences of conduct found to violate the antitrust laws; and (3) whether the court must assess a private plaintiff’s Article III standing with respect to each proposed remedy before awarding injunctive relief.
25-487 Hathon v. Michigan Whether the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is a self-executing stand-alone claim that permits property owners to sue a state directly for just compensation when the state otherwise mandates reliance on an inadequate statutory remedy.
25-479 National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo (1) Whether, when respondent – a former New York official – implemented her scheme against the National Rifle Association of America, it was clearly established that the First Amendment did not allow a government official to coerce a disfavored speaker’s service providers to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf; and (2) whether, when it is obvious that a government official’s conduct violates the Constitution, the violation is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity despite some factual distinctions that are irrelevant under the governing constitutional rule.
25-465 Barton v. Securities and Exchange Commission Whether 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5) and its authorization for the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek “equitable relief” allow the SEC and a district court to use that general equitable authority to order a receivership — seizing every company owned by a defendant that benefitted to the slightest degree from the proceeds of his allegedly illegal acts — and thereby deprive the defendant of the resources to defend himself in a parallel criminal trial.
25-453 Bannon v. U.S. (1) Whether “willfully” in 2 U.S.C. § 192 – which states that anyone who is “summoned … by the authority of either House of Congress” and “willfully makes default” on the subpoena has committed a crime – requires the government to prove the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful; and (2) whether the proper composition of a congressional committee bears on its “authority” to issue a subpoena for purposes of 2 U.S.C. § 192.
25-437 Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Benson (1) Whether genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether Michigan failed to make a “reasonable effort” to remove deceased registrants under the National Voter Registration Act; and (2) whether the appellate court erred by using TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez to determine Article III standing in a case involving the denial of public records.
25-421 National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds violates the Second Amendment.
25-417 Nielsen v. Watanabe Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred here in recognizing a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics cause of action.
25-416 Cangrejeros de Santurce v. Liga de Béisbol (1) Whether the court discard the baseball antitrust exemption by overruling Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, Toolson v. New York Yankees, and Flood v. Kuhn; and (2) whether the court — if it does not overrule Federal Baseball, Toolson, and Flood — should narrowly construe the baseball exemption as applicable only to the circumstances presented in those cases.
25-412 Williamson v. U.S. (1) Whether a “search” occurs when the government takes a purposeful, investigative act directed toward an individual’s home and curtilage, regardless of whether the individual has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area; and (2) whether, even under Katz v. United States, long-term, continuous, and surreptitious surveillance of an individual’s home and curtilage constitutes a “search.”
25-379 Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Schmidt (1) Whether the appellate court erred in using TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez to evaluate standing in this case, which involves the denial of public records; (2) whether TransUnion overruled this Court’s cases establishing the standing inquiry for public records cases; and (3) whether the appellate court erred by finding that the Foundation does not have standing to redress the denial of public records under the National Voter Registration Act.
25-378 Olsen v. Salter Whether a police officer is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the nondisclosure of material exculpatory evidence, absent a showing of bad faith, and was such a right clearly established in 2003 with respect to a police officer who was investigating a shooting, and who inadvertently did not disclose to the prosecutor a larger version of a mugshot photo of an individual whom the defendant already knew and believed to be the “real shooter”; and (2) whether a police officer is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the fair trial right of a criminal defendant when a criminal court permits a witness to make an in-court identification of the defendant following the officer’s overly suggestive pretrial witness identification procedure, and was such a right clearly established in 2003 with respect to a police officer conducting a single-photo show-up where: the identifying victim already knew the defendant he was identifying, neither the prosecutor nor trial judge expressed any constitutional concern, defense counsel did not object at trial to the identification evidence, and a three-judge panel ruled on direct appeal that even if the defendant had objected, the witness’s in-court identification of the defendant still would have been admissible without violating Salter’s constitutional rights.
25-368 Taylor v. Singleton Whether the First Amendment protects begging.
25-362 Griffiths v. Keith (1) Whether a police officer must wait until an armed, fleeing suspect turns and points his gun at the officer before using deadly force where, as here, the suspect refuses to comply with an officer’s commands to drop his weapon, proceeds to flee with the gun in his hand, and could turn and fire upon the officer; and (2) whether the court of appeals violated existing Supreme Court precedent by merely citing the general rule in defining a clearly established right, and by failing to identify any case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.
25-361 Asante v. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services Whether a state’s Medicaid program violates 42 C.F.R. § 431.52(b)’s equal-payment requirement by denying supplemental payments to out-of-state hospitals, thereby paying in-state hospitals more than out-of-state hospitals that furnish the same services to the state’s Medicaid patients.
25-356 Mancuso v. New York (1) Whether New York’s Penal Law § 265.03(3), § 265.02(1) and § 265.01-b(1), which prohibit the ownership of a firearm in the home or for purposes of self-defense by a person convicted of any crime is facially unconstitutional in derogation of the Second Amendment and contravenes this Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen ; and (2) whether the application of New York’s Penal Law § 265.03(3), § 265.02(1) and § 265.01-b(1) to Steven Mancuso prohibiting him from possessing a firearm in his home violates the Second Amendment and contravenes this Court’s decision in Bruen due to his conviction for a violation of the federal Clean Air Act, which is a non-violent felony under United States law.
25-348 AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Kennedy Whether the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 implicates an interest of pharmaceutical manufacturers that is protected by the Due Process Clause.
25-343 CashCall v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (1) Whether a claim for "legal" restitution in excess of net profits triggers the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial; and (2) whether a litigant may validly waive a constitutional right at a time when binding circuit precedent clearly forecloses any exercise of that right.
25-325 Fooks v. Maryland (1) Whether Maryland Code, Public Safety Article, § 5-133(b)(2), which provides that “a person may not possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of a violation classified as a common law crime and received a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years,” violates the Second Amendment on its face, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi; and (2) whether § 5-133(b)(2) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Fooks, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi.
25-290 Odeku v. Texas Whether a complainant’s statements to a sexual assault nurse examiner are testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
25-259 Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County Whether, when a plaintiff alleges that the application of a state policy infringed a fundamental right “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’” a court can deny relief because the infringement did not “shock the conscience."
25-179 Reinink v. Hart (1) Whether, in the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness-of-a-seizure context, a law enforcement officer’s intended level of force is relevant to determining whether an officer’s use of force should be analyzed under a deadly-use-of-force standard or a general use-of-force standard; and (2) whether, in analyzing an excessive force claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an officer’s mistaken use of force being higher than what he or she intended entitles the officer to qualified immunity, so long as the mistake is reasonable under the circumstances.
25-1 Skinner v. Louisiana Whether Louisiana courts erred in refusing to apply Wearry v. Cain to an individual's Brady v. Maryland claims.
24-969 Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Whether, in order to obtain judicial relief, a party challenging governmental action taken by an individual who remained in office against the president’s wishes due to an unconstitutional removal restriction must show that a hypothetical replacement officer would have taken a different action.
23-6912 Fields v. Plappert Whether the requirement that a verdict be based only on the evidence presented in the courtroom at trial satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)’s “clearly established” requirement, and if so, whether a jury’s consideration of and reliance on extrinsic evidence as part of a jury experiment violates this rule.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General (11)

This category consists of petitions that have already been considered at one or more conferences, after which the court asked the federal government for its views on what the court should do with the petition – often because a federal law or interest is involved. This process, during which the petitions effectively remain on hold, can take several months: after the court calls for the solicitor general's views (known as a "CVSG"), the litigants have the chance to meet with lawyers from the U.S. solicitor general's office to try to convince them that the government should support their side. After also consulting with other departments and agencies in the federal government that may have an interest in the case, the solicitor general then files a brief in which it recommends either that the court either grant or deny review. The federal government's recommendation normally carries significant, although not dispositive, weight with the justices.

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
25-293 General Dynamics Corp. v. Scharpf Whether plaintiffs adequately plead that defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment, for purposes of tolling the 15 U.S.C. § 15b (Clayton Act) statute of limitations, by alleging that defendants maintained an unwritten agreement.
25-257 Wells Pharma of Houston, LLC. v. Zyla Life Sciences, LLC. Whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts private state-law unfair competition and consumer protection claims premised on the marketing of compounded drugs without premarket approval.
25-183 Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Whether Title IX provides employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment.
25-159 Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission Whether in private condemnations under the Natural Gas Act, just compensation should be determined by reference to state law.
25-119 Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. NexPoint Advisors, L.P. (1) Whether a bankruptcy court can act as a gatekeeper to screen noncolorable lawsuits against nondebtor bankruptcy participants; and (2) whether a bankruptcy court can to a limited degree exculpate nondebtor bankruptcy participants from liability for conduct arising from the bankruptcy process.
25-113 Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance (1) Under Employment Division v. Smith, whether state laws must always be deemed “neutral” unless plaintiffs prove officials acted against them with subjective religious animus and discriminatory motive; (2) under Smith, whether courts determining a law’s “general applicability” must disregard the law’s preference for secular over religious organizations on the grounds that secular and religious organizations are inherently motivated by different purposes and thus incomparable, or alternatively, whether courts must consider the law’s preference for secular over religious organizations so long as their activities pose a similar risk to the government’s asserted interest in the law; (3) whether hostile statements of government actors against religious adherents are sufficient to establish a First Amendment free exercise violation, or whether states may try to justify their hostility by satisfying strict scrutiny; and (4) Whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s exemption for individuals who participate in health care sharing ministries (HCSMs) preempts New Mexico’s determination that those individuals’ HCSMs may not operate in New Mexico until they forfeit their federal statuses as HCSMs under the ACA.
24-1130 Kingdom of Spain v. Blasket Renewable Investments LLC (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) allows United States courts to assert jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign without determining whether the sovereign consented to arbitrate differences between itself and the plaintiff; and (2) whether, in suits to confirm foreign arbitral awards, forum non conveniens dismissal is categorically unavailable, unavailable in at least some suits, or depends on the facts of each case.
24-1016 RiseandShine Corporation v. PepsiCo Whether trademark strength is a question of fact in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis under 15 U.S.C. § 1114.
24-1015 Does 1-2 v. Hochul (1) Whether compliance with state laws directly contrary to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs may serve as an undue hardship justifying an employer’s noncompliance with Title VII; and (2) whether a state law that requires employers to deny without any consideration all requests by employees for a religious accommodation, contrary to Title VII’s religious nondiscrimination provision, is preempted by Title VII and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
24-1001 Cotter Corporation v. Mazzocchio Whether federal nuclear safety regulations preempt state tort standards of care in public liability actions.
22o161 Nebraska v. Colorado Whether, when one state breaches another's contract and there are "direct, immediate, grave and irreparable injur[ies] to [a state] and its citizens," the court should grant the harmed state leave to file a complaint in an original action.