Supreme Court announces cases it will hear at term’s end

The Supreme Court will close out its 2025-26 term with oral arguments in cases involving immigration law, the Fourth Amendment, generic drug labels, and the availability of claims alleging that a private company aided and abetted torture and serious violations of international human rights laws. The justices on Wednesday morning released the calendar for their April argument session, which is the final regularly scheduled argument session of the term. They will hear eight arguments over six days, beginning on April 20 and ending on April 29.

The April argument schedule 

Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission (April 20) – Whether the SEC can require a defendant to give up profits or benefits without showing that investors were harmed financially.

T.M. v. University of Maryland Medical Systems Corp. (April 20) – Whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents litigants who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.

Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T (consolidated with Verizon Communications v. Federal Communications Commission) (April 21) – A challenge to a federal law that allows the FCC to assess and enforce monetary penalties without guaranteeing the defendant a right to a jury trial.

Bondi v. Lau (April 22) – Whether, to deport a green card holder who committed a crime of moral turpitude or a drug offense but was subsequently allowed to enter the United States, the government must prove that it had clear and convincing evidence of the offense when the green card holder last re-entered the country.

Chatrie v. United States (April 27) – Whether the execution of a “geofence warrant,” which allows law enforcement officials to obtain the identities of cellphone users who were in a particular area at a specific time, violates the Fourth Amendment.

Monsanto v. Durnell (April 27) – Whether a lawsuit, brought under state law, alleging that Monsanto failed to warn the plaintiff that the weedkiller Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is trumped by federal law when the Environmental Protection Agency has not required the warning on labels.

Cisco Systems v. Lopez (April 28) – Whether practitioners of the Falun Gong religion in China can sue Cisco Systems and two of its executives for aiding and abetting violations of the Alien Tort Statute and the Torture Victim Protection Act for their role in developing and selling to the Chinese government a surveillance and internal-security system, which the government then used to find and interrogate practitioners of the religion.

Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA v. Amarin Pharmaceuticals Inc. (April 29) – Whether a generic drugmaker can be sued for encouraging or facilitating patent infringement based on public statements indicating that its product is the generic version of a brand-name drug and its references to the brand-name drug’s sales figures.