| 24-1287 |
Learning Resources v. Trump |
Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act authorizes the president to
impose tariffs. |
| 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. |
| 24-1261 |
Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Athletic Association |
(1) Whether Santa Fe Independent School
District v. Doe compels a finding of government speech where two
private Christian schools sought to engage
in communal prayer over a loudspeaker
before a football game organized by a
state athletic association that otherwise
permitted a wide array of private speech
over the loudspeaker, and should therefore
be overruled in light of this court’s later
holdings; and (2) whether the endorsement factor of the
government-speech doctrine revives the “endorsement test offshoot” of Lemon v. Kurtzman that
“this Court long ago abandoned,” by providing a special veto
for a private party’s religious speech on any
government owned platform. |
| 24-1145 |
Live Nation Entm't v. Heckman |
(1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act protects all arbitration
agreements or only a subset of traditional, bilateral
arbitration agreements that the act’s drafters
specifically envisioned; and (2) whether the FAA preempts California’s
severability doctrine because it specifically targets
and disproportionately invalidates arbitration
agreements. |
| 24-1107 |
Peoples v. Cook County, Illinois |
Whether the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution provides the sort of
explicit textual source of constitutional protection for
overdetention such that the Eighth Amendment, not
substantive due process, must be the exclusive guide for
analyzing claims of unconstitutional overdetention. |
| 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. |
| 24-1095 |
Koetter v. Manistee County Treasurer |
(1) Whether the government violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment or
takings clause of the 5th Amendment by denying just compensation
to property owners who miss a narrow and
premature window to preserve their right to
just compensation; and (2) whether, to the extent it authorizes Michigan’s
confiscatory claim statute, the Supreme Court should
overrule Nelson v. City of New York. |
| 24-1093 |
Mumford v. Iowa |
Whether a dog sniff of the interior of a lawfully
stopped vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution absent
consent to the sniff or probable cause to believe that the
vehicle contains illegal drugs. |
| 24-1092 |
Mungo Homes, LLC v. Huskins |
Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred
in applying a severability rule that disfavors arbitration
and by creating a state-specific public policy defense
to arbitration that conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act, such that
enforcement of arbitration agreements in the state now
turns on whether enforcement is sought in state or federal
court. |
| 24-1084 |
Hohn v. U.S. |
Whether a prosecutor’s intentional, unjustified intrusion into a defendant’s attorney-client communications violates the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution without a showing of discrete, trial-specific prejudice. |
| 24-1078 |
Beck v. U.S. |
(1) Whether Feres v. United
States’s bar against
a servicemember’s ability to bring tort claims
“incident to service” is only triggered when the injury
was directly caused by the servicemember’s military
duties or orders; and (2) whether the court should limit or
overrule Feres because its limitation on
servicemembers has no basis in the Federal Tort Claims Act's text and
is unworkable. |
| 24-1073 |
Maxwell v. U.S. |
Whether, under Santobello v. New York and common principles of contract
interpretation, promise on behalf of the
“United States” or the “Government” that is made by a
U.S. Attorney in one district binds federal
prosecutors in other districts. |
| 24-1063 |
Hunter v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to
appeal and the government does not object. |
| 24-1061 |
Project Veritas v. Vasquez |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred by holding that Oregon’s
prohibition of unannounced recordings – which expressly
exempts recordings of police activity and discussions
during certain felonies – is content-neutral and thus subject only to intermediate scrutiny; and (2) whether, even if Oregon’s law is content-neutral, it fails
intermediate scrutiny because it restricts unannounced
audio recording in wholly public settings where privacy
interests are minimal or nonexistent. |
| 24-1050 |
Estate of Te’Juan Johnson v. Rakes |
(1) Whether a theory of liability under the
14th Amendment to the Constitution based on “state-created danger” is incompatible with the
purpose of the due process clause of that Amendment “to
protect the people from the State, not to
ensure that the State protect[s] them from
each other"; (2) whether, if a theory of liability under the 14th
Amendment based on “state-created danger” exists consistent with the purpose
of the due process clause, a police
officer who misrepresents to an individual
that a threatening person will be confined
thereby assumes an affirmative constitutional
duty to protect that individual from harm; and (3) whether a police officer who misrepresents
to an individual that a threatening person will
be confined is entitled to qualified immunity
in the absence of clearly established law
that he thereby assumed an affirmative
obligation under the due process clause to
protect that individual from harm. |
| 24-1020 |
Uber Technologies v. Drammeh |
Whether, under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, a federal court must apply existing
state law or can instead predict changes in state law. |
| 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. |
| 24-994 |
National Basketball Association v. Salazar |
(1) Whether a consumer claiming that he was
harmed by disclosure of his personal information
must plead that his information was revealed to the
public to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, or instead the consumer need only plead that his information was disclosed to any third party without his
consent; and (2) whether the Video Privacy Protection Act bars a business from disclosing information about consumers who do not
subscribe to its audiovisual goods or services. |
| 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. |
| 24-948 |
Guerrero v. Redd |
Whether, under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., a court of appeals’ decision
should be vacated because the appeal became moot by
happenstance while a petition for rehearing was pending, or instead can be left in place because further review is discretionary. |
| 24-935 |
Flower Foods v. Brock |
Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel
in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the
goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that
cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. |
| 24-796 |
Missouri v. U.S. |
(1) Whether federal courts can second-guess a state"s "reason" for exercising 10th Amendment authority; (2) whether the federal Constitution prohibits states from exercising 10th Amendment authority when motivated
by a concern that a federal statute is unconstitutional; and (3) whether a state official is a proper defendant under Ex parte Young simply because the official is regulated by
a statute, or instead the official also needs to possess authority to enforce the challenged law. |
| 24-594 |
Seale v. U.S. |
Whether the certificate of appealability requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) bars a court of appeals from exercising jurisdiction over a person's appeal from a district court's refusal to conduct a full resentencing after one of their convictions was vacated on constitutional grounds. |
| 24-532 |
Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. |
(1) Whether, for interpreting the intentions of treaty parties regarding a word like "person," extra-textual information such as historical context and contemporary domestic law is a material input in parallel with the textual analysis; and
(2) whether the New York Convention applies for arbitration agreements governing a dispute with a sovereign nation arising out of its role as a sovereign. |
