You can see all paid petitions we're following below, organized by petitions relisted for the next conference, those scheduled for initial consideration at the next conference, other featured petitions, and finally, petitions in which the court has called for the views of the solicitor general.
View this list sorted by case name.
Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference (15)
| Docket | Case Page | Issue(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 24-826 | Humphreys v. Emmons | Whether a federal court must apply the deferential review provisions of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act to the state court’s adjudication of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim when deciding whether that claim constitutes cause and prejudice to overcome a procedural default. |
| 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. |
| 24-1015 | 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. |
| 24-1022 | Hutson v. U.S. | Whether a state or local official who moves to terminate prospective relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A) bears any affirmative burden beyond demonstrating that the requisite amount of time has passed. |
| 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. |
| 24-1078 | 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. |
| 24-1159 | Pitts v. Mississippi | Whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the use of a screen at trial that blocks a child witness’s view of the defendant, without any individualized finding by the trial court that the screen is necessary to prevent trauma to the child. |
| 24-1189 | California Stem Cell Treatment Center v. U.S. | (1) Whether stem cells removed, isolated, and then reimplanted in a patient’s own stem cells to promote natural healing via surgical procedure are “drugs” subject to regulation under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act; and (2) whether, if so, the Food and Drug Administration had a lawful basis for an enforcement action to prevent prevent physicians from undertaking the procedure given the FDA's own “same surgical procedure” exception to the Act. |
| 24-1202 | Doe v. Grindr Inc. | (1) Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes apps from liability for their own conduct in marketing and designing defective products and without providing sufficient warnings; (2) whether the following activities traditional publishing functions that justify dismissal on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion under Section 230: (a) determining who is offered access to an app, (b) extracting unpublished location data from users, or (c) algorithmically recommending nearby strangers to one another for in-person encounters; and (3) whether a sex hookup app is not liable for trafficking pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1591 or 18 U.S.C. § 1595 even if it knowingly profits from intentionally marketing to children and recommending them to nearby adults for sex. |
| 24-6543 | Chaney v. U.S. | (1) Whether a criminal defendant can knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to appeal a district court’s yet-to-be-made errors as part of a plea agreement; (2) whether, if so, limits exist on the validity and enforceability of such appeal waivers; and (3) whether the appeal waiver in this case qualifies for the “miscarriage of justice” exception. |
| 24-7183 | Little v. U.S. | Whether the court should grant the petition, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case for further consideration of the government’s pending motion to dismiss pursuant to the president's January 20, 2025, executive order directing the attorney general to seek dismissal with prejudice of all pending cases against individuals for “conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” |
| 24-7351 | Pitchford v. Cain | (1) Whether clearly established federal law requires reversal of a state appellate court’s denial of relief from a capital prosecutor’s discriminatory exercise of four peremptory strikes against Black venire members wherein the trial court, for each of the four strikes, failed to determine “the plausibility of the reason in light of all evidence with a bearing on it” under Miller-El v. Dretke; (2) whether Mississippi Supreme Court precedent, which deems waived on direct review arguments of pretext not stated in the trial record, defies this court’s clearly established federal law under Batson v. Kentucky; and (3) whether a finding of waiver on a trial record possessing Batson objections, defense counsel's efforts to argue the objection, and the trial court’s express assurance the issues were preserved constitutes an unreasonable determination of facts. |
| 25-41 | Peters v. Cohen | (1) Whether the state controller of California's actions under color of the California Unclaimed Property Law violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment because they deprive owners of their property without affording constitutionally adequate notice; and (2) whether the controller’s actions violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment because state employees and their commissioned private auditors seize, sell, and destroy private property without just compensation. |
| 25-51 | Klein v. Martin | Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit violated the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s deferential standard by overturning a state-court decision based on the supposed lack of “nuance” and “exhaustiveness” in the court’s written opinion, rather than the reasonableness of its legal conclusion. |
| 25-89 | Lee v. Poudre School District R-1 | Whether a school district may discard the presumption that fit parents act in the best interests of their children and arrogate to itself the right to direct the care, custody, and control of their children. |
Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference (4)
| Docket | Case Page | Issue(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 24-1099 | 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. |
| 24-1084 | 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. |
| 24-994 | 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. |
Featured Petitions (8)
| Docket | Case Page | Issue(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 25-243 | Allen v. Caster | (1) Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires Alabama to create a new majority-Black district; (2) Whether creating a new majority-Black district would violate the 14th or 15th Amendments; and (3) Whether Section 2 creates a privately enforceable right |
| 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. |
| 24-1099 | 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. |
| 24-1084 | 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. |
| 24-994 | 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. |
Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General (10)
| Docket | Case Page | Issue(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| 24-1068 | Monsanto Company v. Durnell | Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim when the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval. |
| 24-1030 | Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Johnson | Whether pleading an imprudent-investment claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, based on how the investment’s returns compared to some performance benchmark, requires allegations showing that the benchmark is a sound basis for comparison for that investment. |
| 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. |
| 24-1001 | Cotter Corporation v. Mazzocchio | Whether federal nuclear safety regulations preempt state tort standards of care in public liability actions. |
| 24-917 | Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. NTE Carolinas II, LLC | Whether a plaintiff can prevail on a monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act by aggregating multiple distinct, independently lawful acts into an unlawful whole. |
| 24-909 | Agudas Chasidei Chabad of U.S. v. Russian Federation | Whether a “foreign state” lacks immunity from U.S. jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act if either U.S.-nexus test in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3) is met, or instead a “foreign state” loses its immunity only if the first U.S.-nexus test is met—i.e., if the expropriated property, or property exchanged for it, is found in the United States. |
| 24-889 | Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma | (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use. |
| 24-856 | Cisco Systems v. Doe I | (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; (2) whether, if ATS aiding-and-abetting claims are cognizable, mere knowledge rather than purpose suffices to show the requisite mens rea; and (3) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting. |
| 24-620 | Pizarro v. The Home Depot | Whether, consistent with trust law, burden-shifting applies to the element of causation under 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a). |