Briefly Mentioned :

Briefly Noted :

On Monday, the court will release orders from the June 4 conference at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions at 10 a.m. We will be live-blogging starting at 9:25 a.m. at this link, where you can sign up for an email reminder when the live blog begins.

Petitions We’re Watching

You can select a particular conference (or the cases referred to the Solicitor General) below or click here to instead sort by the case's name. (Sorting by case name prompts display of the complete, searchable list of cases.)

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
18-663 Mance v. Barr Whether prohibiting interstate handgun sales, facially or as applied to consumers whose home jurisdictions authorize such transactions, violates the Second Amendment and the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
18-824 Rogers v. Grewal (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
18-843 Pena v. Horan Whether California’s Unsafe Handgun Act violates the Second Amendment by banning handguns of the kind in common use for traditional lawful purposes.
18-913 Brennan v. Dawson Whether a police officer may reasonably rely on a narrow exception to a specific and clearly established right to shield him from civil liability when his conduct far exceeds the limits of that exception.
18-1078 Dawson v. Brennan Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit misapplied the Supreme Court’s authority and created a conflict among the U.S. courts of appeals by holding that a law enforcement officer violates the Fourth Amendment by entering the rear curtilage of a home in attempting to gain the resident’s compliance with his probation condition.
18-1272 Gould v. Lipson (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense and (2) whether the government may deny categorically the exercise of the right to carry a firearm outside the home to typical law-abiding citizens by conditioning the exercise of the right on a showing of a special need to carry a firearm.
18-1287 Baxter v. Bracey (1) Whether binding authority holding that a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he uses a police dog to apprehend a suspect who has surrendered by lying down on the ground “clearly establish[es]” that it is likewise unconstitutional to use a police dog on a suspect who has surrendered by sitting on the ground with his hands up; and (2) whether the judge-made doctrine of qualified immunity, which cannot be justified by reference to the text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or the relevant common law background, and which has been shown not to serve its intended policy goals, should be narrowed or abolished.
18-9674 Andrus v. Texas Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. Washington, fails to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment right to due process when, in death-penalty cases involving flagrantly deficient performance, courts can deny relief following a truncated “no prejudice” analysis that does not account for the evidence amassed in a habeas proceeding and relies on a trial record shaped by trial counsel’s ineffective representation.
19-27 Cheeseman v. Polillo Whether states can limit the ability to bear handguns outside the home to only those found to have a sufficiently heightened “need” for self-protection.
19-114 Ciolek v. New Jersey Whether the legislative requirement of “justifiable need," which, as defined, does not include general self-defense, for a permit to carry a handgun in public violates the Second Amendment.
19-404 Worman v. Healey Whether Massachusetts’ ban on the possession of firearms and ammunition magazines for lawful purposes unconstitutionally infringes the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
19-423 Malpasso v. Pallozzi Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense in any manner.
19-487 Culp v. Raoul Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified nonresidents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.
19-532 U.S. v. California Whether provisions of California law that, with certain limited exceptions, prohibit state law-enforcement officials from providing federal immigration authorities with release dates and other information about individuals subject to federal immigration enforcement, and restrict the transfer of aliens in state custody to federal immigration custody, are preempted by federal law or barred by intergovernmental immunity.
19-656 Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota (1) Whether the burden of persuasion in qualified immunity cases should be, in part or entirely, on the plaintiff as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in this case and by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th and 11th Circuits, or whether it should be placed on the defendant, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th and District of Columbia Circuits; (2) whether, under the state-created-danger doctrine, due process is violated when first responders fail to provide any treatment to a person suffering from severe hypothermia, and instead erroneously declare him dead; and (3) whether the 8th Circuit erred in dismissing this state-created-danger case on qualified immunity grounds.
19-676 Zadeh v. Robinson Whether the Supreme Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.
19-679 Corbitt v. Vickers (1) Whether qualified immunity is an affirmative defense (placing the burden on the defendant to raise and prove it) or whether it is a pleading requirement (placing the burden on a plaintiff to plead its absence); (2) whether the Supreme Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.
19-704 Wilson v. Cook County, Illinois (1) Whether the Second Amendment allows a local government to prohibit law-abiding residents from possessing and protecting themselves and their families with a class of rifles and ammunition magazines that are “in common use at [this] time” and are not “dangerous and unusual”; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s method of analyzing Second Amendment issues – a three-part test that asks whether a regulation bans (1) weapons that were common at the time of ratification or (2) those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia and (3) whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense – is consistent with the Supreme Court’s holding in District of Columbia v. Heller.
19-753 Hunter v. Cole Whether, if the barrel of a gun is not yet pointed directly at an officer, clearly established federal law prohibits police officers from firing to stop a person armed with a firearm from moving a deadly weapon toward an officer if the officer has not both shouted a warning and also waited to determine whether the imminent threat to life has subsided after the warning; and (2) whether a police officer who inaccurately reports his perceptions of events during a dynamic shooting encounter violates clearly established rights under the 14th Amendment.
19-863 Niz-Chavez v. Barr Whether, to serve notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve a specific document that includes all the information identified in Section 1229(a), or whether the government can serve that information over the course of as many documents and as much time as it chooses.
19-899 West v. Winfield Whether an officer who has consent to “get inside” a house but instead destroys it from the outside is entitled to qualified immunity in the absence of precisely factually on-point case law.
19-7732 Hanks v. U.S. (1) Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), which criminalizes the use of a firearm during a “crime of violence” – in this case, the federal bank-robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 –may be violated by unintentionally intimidating a victim through verbal demands or the passing of a demand note rather than the use or threatened use of physical force, and whether the definition of the term “crime of violence” cabined in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) is unconstitutionally vague on its face and unconstitutionally vague under the rule of lenity; and (2) whether there is currently a conflict among the U.S. courts of appeals and an ambiguity in the law regarding the federal statutory definition of the term “crime of violence,” and a conflict between the holdings of some circuits, specifically the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, and the Supreme Court’s previous holdings regarding the constitutional viability of the current definition of the term “crime of violence” in Section 924(c) and related federal statutes.
19-7790 Mason v. Faul (1) Whether a finding of “objectively unreasonable excessive force” can be squared with a finding of qualified immunity under the facts and circumstances of this case, including whether determinations of the trial court, as affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, resulted in an incorrect analysis of the qualified immunity issue; and (2) whether the 5th Circuit’s determination can be reconciled with other courts'.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
19-1080 Archer and White Sales Inc. v. Henry Schein Inc. (1) Whether an arbitration agreement that identifies a set of arbitration rules to apply if there is arbitration clearly and unmistakably delegates to the arbitrator disputes about whether the parties agreed to arbitrate in the first place; and (2) whether an arbitrator or a court decides whether a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement can enforce the arbitration agreement through equitable estoppel.
19-1070 Olson v. Pennsylvania Whether the Supreme Court’s holding that states may not “impose criminal penalties on the refusal to submit to” a warrantless blood draw in Birchfield v. North Dakota is substantive and therefore applies retroactively.
19-1069 Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund (1) Whether the chain of causation between a manufacturer’s allegedly false or misleading statements or omissions and end payments for prescription drugs is too attenuated to satisfy the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act’s proximate cause requirement, given that every prescription-drug payment depends on numerous intervening factors, including a doctor’s independent decision to prescribe; (2) whether everyone who pays for a product with an alleged latent risk or defect necessarily suffers injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, even when the product is fully consumed, provides the bargained-for benefits and causes no ill effects.
19-1054 Pike v. Gross (1) Whether a defendant who asserts that trial counsel failed to present key evidence is precluded from showing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, unless the evidence omitted at trial differs substantially in subject matter from the evidence actually presented; and (2) whether the Eighth and 14th Amendments prohibit condemning to death a defendant who was 18 years old at the time of the offense.
19-1051 Kansas v. Boettger Whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from criminalizing threats to commit violence communicated in reckless disregard of the risk of placing another in fear.
19-1042 Winzer v. Kaufman County, Texas Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that although a reasonable juror could conclude that it was clearly unreasonable for a law-enforcement officer to fire multiple bullets at an unarmed, non-threatening suspect from 90 yards away—only seconds after first seeing him—the law in this country is not “clearly established” enough for a reasonable law-enforcement officer to make the same conclusion.
19-963 Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. Whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
19-897 Albence v. Chavez Whether the detention of an alien who is subject to a reinstated removal order and who is pursuing withholding or deferral of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231, or instead by 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
19-896 Albence v. Arteaga-Martinez Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
19-889 Kaufman County, Texas v. Winzer (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit panel majority erred in reversing Kaufman County’s summary judgment after concluding that Officer Matthew Hinds did not violate clearly established law; (2) whether the 5th Circuit panel majority improperly retained Kaufman County as a defendant by concluding that Hinds may have violated a constitutional right by evaluating his use of force from the perspective of the respondents; and (3) whether the 5th Circuit panel majority improperly second-guessed the reasonableness of Hinds’ use of force without due regard to the circumstances he encountered.
19-875 OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state from invalidating an arbitration agreement as substantively unconscionable on the ground that it provides procedural protections akin to civil litigation, rather than to the streamlined administrative proceeding that would be available under state law in the absence of the agreement.
18-1401 Peterson v. Linear Controls Inc. Whether the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” covered by Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are limited only to hiring, firing, promotions, compensation and leave. CVSG: 3/20/2020.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22O65 Texas v. New Mexico Whether the River Master correctly allocated evaporation losses under the Pecos River Compact.
19A1047 Williams v. Wilson Whether the Supreme Court should stay, pending appeal, both an April 22, 2020, order by a federal district court instructing officials at the Bureau of Prisons to evaluate elderly and high-risk prisoners for transfer out of a prison facility in Elkton, Ohio, where several inmates have died from COVID-19, and a May 19, 2020, order by the district court enforcing the original order.
19-1328 Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary Whether an impeachment trial before a legislative body is a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
19-1309 Phipps v. Idaho Whether the “limited authority to detain” during the execution of a judicially approved search warrant for contraband, under Michigan v. Summers, permits probation officers conducting a routine residence check to detain any visitor present, without any suspicion the visitor has done something unlawful or poses a danger.
19-1307 Thomas v. Barnes Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit misapplied the Supreme Court's precedent in Brecht v. Abrahamson by granting habeas relief when there was no evidence that a juror's contact with a third party had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict.
19-1306 United Parcel Service Inc. v. New York (1) Whether multiple shipments from different shippers may be aggregated to satisfy the 10,000-cigarette threshold of the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, which prohibits the knowing transportation of “a quantity” of more than 10,000 untaxed cigarettes in the “possession” of unauthorized persons; and (2) whether substantial compliance is a prerequisite to the statutory exemption of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009, which exempts the United Parcel Service by name if its tobacco-delivery agreement with New York is “honored” nationwide.
19-1302 Shinn v. Kayer Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254’s deferential standard, and employed a flawed methodology that the Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned, when it granted habeas relief based on a de novo finding that a Sixth Amendment violation had occurred.
19-1301 Bovat v. Vermont Whether a police officer can access “semiprivate” areas within a home’s curtilage to conduct an investigation without a warrant.
19-1291 Hamner v. Burls (1) Whether qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that state actors must assert, as nine U.S. Courts of Appeals hold, or whether federal appellate courts may raise the defense sua sponte, as three U.S. Courts of Appeals hold; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Pearson v. Callahan in light of empirical evidence that bypassing the constitutional prong results in a constitutional catch-22, increasingly leaving pressing questions unanswered simply because they have not been answered before.
19-1285 Lea v. U.S. (1) Whether the federal statute, regulations and contractual provisions governing the transfer and redemption of U.S. savings bonds preempt the state of Arkansas from obtaining ownership of matured but unredeemed bonds through a statute providing for the escheat of title to the state; (2) whether the federal statute, regulations and contractual provisions governing the transfer and redemption of U.S. savings bonds require the U.S. Department of the Treasury to redeem matured savings bonds that are owned by a state pursuant to a valid judgment of escheatment but that the state cannot identify by serial number without Treasury’s assistance; and (3) whether the interpretation of federal law adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit below results in an uncompensated taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.
19-1280 Idaho Department of Correction v. Edmo (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that the guidelines set by an advocacy organization – providing for sex reassignment surgery instead of hormone therapy and counseling for gender dysphoria – constitute the constitutional minima for inmate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, when the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 5th, 10th and 11th Circuits have all concluded that they do not; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit’s holding that a prison health-care provider’s individualized medical decision was unreasonable and therefore constituted deliberate indifference, regardless of his subjective reasoning, conflicts with Estelle v. Gamble, holding that mere negligence does not establish deliberate indifference, and Farmer v. Brennan, holding the provider must have known of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to find deliberate indifference.
19-1279 LaTurner v. U.S. (1) Whether states that have exercised their historic power to escheat title to abandoned U.S. savings bonds may redeem those bonds as successor owners, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has concluded, or whether federal law preempts such redemption, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held below; and (2) whether U.S. Department of the Treasury regulations requiring presentation of a bond serial number may operate as a time bar to prevent a bond owner who has lost that serial number from ever redeeming that bond.
19-1278 Fussell v. Louisiana (1) Whether the due process clause requires that a child receive an individualized hearing before being placed in criminal court to be tried as an adult; and (2) whether a state statute that places children in the exclusive jurisdiction of its juvenile courts creates a liberty interest that is protected by the due process clause.
19-1269 TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson Whether a patent owner required to license its standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a proceeding seeking the equitable relief of specific performance.
19-1267 Ford Motor Company of Canada, Ltd. v. Bell Whether “control” – concerning when federal law permits someone to be subject to preclusion for having exercised “control” over a lawsuit, even if they were not formally a party to it – is assessed based on the totality of the circumstances, as seven U.S. courts of appeals have held, or using a rigid two-part test, as four U.S. courts of appeals have held.
19-1258 Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee (1) Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to authorize any voting practice that would be used disproportionately by racial minorities, even if existing voting procedures are race-neutral and offer all voters an equal opportunity to vote; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit correctly held that Arizona’s ballot-harvesting prohibition was tainted by discriminatory intent even though the legislators were admittedly driven by partisan interests and by supposedly “unfounded” concerns about voter fraud.
19-1257 Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (1) Whether Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and (2) whether Arizona’s ballot-collection law, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment.
19-1255 Baker v. Rose Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s decision – reversing a federal district court’s denial of habeas relief in a decision that sounds of ordinary error correction instead of applying the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, after the state trial court rejected both the defendant’s and the state’s attempts to introduce evidence of uncharged acts and prior acquittals – violates the AEDPA, given that the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit under materially indistinguishable circumstances in Nevada v. Jackson.
19-1254 Pennsylvania v. Davis (1) Whether the foregone-conclusion exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination established in Fisher v. United States and its progeny applies to the compelled production of passwords to encrypted electronic devices when the government has seized a device pursuant to a valid search warrant and has independent knowledge that the password exists, is known by the suspect and will decrypt the device, such that the compelled information itself lacks testimonial significance and any testimony implied by the compelled act is already known by the government, is not in issue and adds little or nothing to the sum total of the government's information; and (2) whether, assuming the foregone-conclusion exception applies, the government must demonstrate knowledge relating solely to the password sought or must also demonstrate knowledge of the contents of the encrypted device for which a judge has already authorized a search.
19-1241 National Association of Broadcasters v. Prometheus Radio Project Whether under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the Federal Communications Commission may repeal or modify media ownership rules that it determines are no longer “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition” without statistical evidence about the prospective effect of its rule changes on minority and female ownership.
19-1231 Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the Federal Communications Commission orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency’s cross-ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions.
19-1225 Hunt v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico Whether the Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico violated Paul Hunt’s clearly established rights as a private citizen under the First Amendment by punishing him for his off-campus, political speech.
19-1222 Duckworth v. U.S. Whether the government is required to show a substantial connection between money it has seized and an intended violation of the Controlled Substances Act in order to obtain civil asset forfeiture under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(6).
19-1220 Szonyi v. Barr (1) Whether National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services requires deference to an agency standard a court has already deemed to be an impermissible reading of the statutory text; and (2) whether a rule promulgated through adjudication by an agency exercising its Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council step two and Brand X powers can have retroactive effect.
19-1214 Friend v. Indiana Whether, and under what circumstances, criminal defendants’ Sixth Amendment and due process rights entitle them to obtain witnesses’ privileged treatment records from private doctors, psychotherapists or counselors.
19-1212 Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security policy known as the Migrant Protection Protocols is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C); (2) whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulement obligations; (3) whether MPP is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking; and (4) whether the district court’s universal preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad.
19-1208 Yanez-Pena v. Barr Whether “a notice to appear” as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions can consist of information compiled from multiple documents, rather than one document that contains all of the statutorily required information.
19-1201 Bright v. Thomas Whether a sign regulation containing an exception for on-premises signs, for which both commercial and noncommercial speech may qualify, violates the First Amendment under the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
19-1195 Palacios-Solis v. U.S. Whether the prosecution violates the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause when it uses a criminal defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda-warning silence as evidence of guilt in its case-in-chief.
19-1194 Kuang v. Department of Defense (1) Whether courts can evade their constitutional and statutory duty to review military decisions under the so-called “Mindes test,” from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's decision in Mindes v. Seamen, or whether claims seeking injunctive relief against the military are reviewable so long as they do not present a nonjusticiable political question or otherwise fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether a Department of Defense policy that requires all legal permanent resident enlistees—but not their U.S.- citizen counterparts—to suffer unjustified delays before beginning their military careers is judicially reviewable.
19-1191 Ohio v. Ford What test determines whether someone is “intellectually disabled” for purposes of the Eighth Amendment.
19-1189 BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.
19-1186 Baker v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (1) Whether Medicaid recipients have a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23) to challenge a state’s determination that a specific provider is not qualified to provide certain medical services; and (2) what framework properly decides whether a statute creates a private right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19-1184 Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1) Whether federal courts have authority to save a state or local law from unconstitutionality by positing a limiting construction that has no state-law basis and contradicts governing authorities’ understanding of their own law; and (2) whether Pittsburgh’s buffer-zone ordinance violates the free speech clause.
19-1177 American Institute for Int'l Steel Inc. v. U.S. Whether Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended, is facially unconstitutional on the ground that it lacks any boundaries that confine the president’s discretion to impose tariffs on imported goods and, therefore, constitutes an improper delegation of legislative authority and a violation of the principle of separation of powers established by the Constitution.
19-1176 Yovino v. Rizo Whether prior salary is “[an]other factor other than sex” under the Equal Pay Act, which permits employers to pay men and women different wages for the same work “where such payment is made pursuant to (i) a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (iv) a differential based on any other factor other than sex.”
19-1166 Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Environment v. Bureau of Indian Affairs Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires dismissal of an Administrative Procedure Act action challenging a federal agency’s compliance with statutory requirements governing federal agency decisions, for failure to join a non-federal entity that would benefit from the challenged agency action and cannot be joined without consent.
19-1158 Airbus Helicopters Inc. v. Riggs Whether a private party is “acting under” a federal officer and may remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), when it is carrying out duties formally and expressly delegated by the Federal Aviation Administration.
19-1157 Weatherly v. Pershing, L.L.C. (1) Whether in a class action filed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the tolling rule of American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah applies, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has held, or whether state tolling law applies as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in this case and as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 9th Circuits have held; and (2) whether, if federal tolling applies, tolling occurs when a plaintiff brings an individual action before the district court has ruled on the class certification question, as the 2nd, 9th and 10th Circuits have ruled, or whether tolling does not apply as the 1st and 6th Circuits have ruled.
19-1156 Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume an applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates a withholding-of-removal application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination.
19-1155 Barr v. Dai (1) Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume that an asylum applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates an application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination; and (2) whether the court of appeals violated the remand rule as set forth in INS v. Ventura when it determined in the first instance that the respondent, Ming Dai, was eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal.
19-1154 Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips (1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law contract rule that singles out arbitration agreements for invalidation because they were signed by family members or other persons for the benefit of the third-party residents now bringing the claims; (2) whether the FAA preempts a state-law contract rule singling out arbitration agreements by imposing a “mutuality of obligation” requirement on them that is not a requirement for other contracts; and (3) whether the FAA preempts a state-law contract rule that singles out arbitration agreements due to lack of “mutuality of assent” because they were not signed by the party seeking to enforce them, when Arkansas law allows other contracts to be valid and enforceable without a signature based on other factors including actual performance.
19-1153 Suzuki v. Deedy (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in affirming the district court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction to adjudicate a case brought by a state-court loser complaining of injuries caused by the judgment rendered by the state’s highest court before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting the court to review and reject that judgment; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that the state trial court’s decision not to charge the jury on reckless manslaughter–a lesser-included offense of murder for which the defendant stood trial–constituted an acquittal of that offense.
19-1147 Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (1) Whether liability for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) requires that all steps of a patented process must be practiced by, or at least attributable to, a single entity, a requirement that the Supreme Court previously recognized is a prerequisite for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and (b) in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc.; and (2) whether, by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to grant expedited review and approval of labels for generic pesticides that are “identical or substantially similar” to the previously approved labels for the same product, Congress intended to preclude claims of copyright infringement with respect to generic pesticide labels.
19-1145 Ng v. U.S. (1) Whether the generic term “organization” in 18 U.S.C. § 666 should be construed to include quasi-sovereign public international entities like the United Nations; and (2) whether the official-act requirement under McDonnell v. United States applies to Section 666 and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecutions like this one and, if so, whether it was satisfied here.
19-1143 FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit correctly holds that tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is established whenever an exception under Montana v. United States is met, or whether, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 8th Circuits have held, a court must also determine that the exercise of such jurisdiction stems from the tribe’s inherent authority to set conditions on entry, preserve tribal self-government or control internal relations; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit has construed the Montana exceptions to swallow the general rule that tribes lack jurisdiction over nonmembers.
19-1141 Atlantic Trading USA, LLC v. BP P.L.C. (1) Whether passing Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd.’s domestic-transaction test is sufficient or merely necessary to determine whether a claim seeks a permissibly territorial application of U.S. law; and (2) whether the focus of the Commodity Exchange Act differs from the Securities Exchange Act’s focus on the location of the exchange or transaction at issue.
19-1138 Knight v. Grossman Whether a claim for violation of a prisoner-patient’s 14th Amendment right to informed consent requires a showing of deliberate indifference and proof of refusal or whether the approach adopted by a majority of circuits, which applies a balancing test weighing, on one hand, the state’s interests in providing for the basic needs of prisoners and, on the other hand, the prisoner’s right to such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed decision to accept or reject proposed treatment as well as a reasonable explanation of the viable alternative treatments available, should control.
19-1134 Baley v. U.S. Whether, against the legal backdrop of Congress’ and the Supreme Court’s recognition of the primacy of state law to determine, quantify and administer water rights, a federal court may deem federal agency regulatory action under the Endangered Species Act to constitute the adjudication and administration of water rights for tribal purposes.
19-1130 Danielson v. Inslee (1) Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a “good-faith defense” to private entities who violate another’s constitutional rights before the courts have clearly established the illegality of their conduct; and (2) whether the defenses of qualified immunity or “good faith” allow a defendant who takes another person’s money or property in violation of the Constitution—but in reliance on a statute or court ruling that purported to authorize its conduct and is only later declared unconstitutional—to keep that money or property when the owner sues for its return.
19-1126 Mooney v. Illinois Education Association (1) Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a “good-faith defense” to private entities who violate another’s constitutional rights before the courts have clearly established the illegality of their conduct; and (2) whether the defenses of qualified immunity or “good faith” allow a defendant who takes another person’s money or property in violation of the Constitution—but in reliance on a statute or court ruling that purported to authorize its conduct and is only later declared unconstitutional—to keep that money or property when the owner sues for its return.
19-1124 Chrimar Systems Inc. v. Ale USA Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may apply a finality standard for patent cases that conflicts with the standard applied by the Supreme Court and all other circuit courts in non-patent cases; and (2) whether a final judgment of liability and damages that has been affirmed on appeal may be reversed based on the decision of an administrative agency, merely because an appeal having nothing to do with liability, damages or the proper calculation of the ongoing royalty rate is pending.
19-1123 Lech v. Jackson Whether there is a categorical exception to the just compensation clause when the government takes property while acting pursuant to its police power.
19-1116 LinkedIn Corp. v. hiQ Labs Inc. Whether a company that deploys anonymous computer “bots” to circumvent technical barriers and harvest millions of individuals’ personal data from computer servers that host public-facing websites—even after the computer servers’ owner has expressly denied permission to access the data—“intentionally accesses a computer without authorization” in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
19-1115 American Bankers Association v. National Credit Union Administration Whether, when a statute expressly directs an agency to define a statutory term, the delegation expands the scope of the agency’s authority at Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council step two beyond its ordinary bounds.
19-1108 Mckesson v. Doe Whether the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. foreclose a state law negligence action making a leader of a protest demonstration personally liable in damages for injuries inflicted by an unidentified person’s violent act there, when it is undisputed that the leader neither intended, authorized, directed, nor ratified the perpetrator’s act nor engaged in or incited violence of any kind.
19-1106 Sharp v. Smith (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in concluding that Moore v. Texas I and Moore v. Texas II were mere applications of Atkins v. Virginia that could be applied retroactively on collateral review, contrary to Shoop v. Hill and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit; (2) whether, in sua sponte holding that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not rule on the adaptive-functioning prong because its analysis was too cursory, the 10th Circuit violated the Supreme Court's precedent that forbids the imposition of opinion-writing standards, Johnson v. Williams; and (3) whether, reviewed de novo or with deference, the 10th Circuit erred in granting habeas relief on the respondent Roderick Smith’s claim of adaptive-functioning deficits when Smith’s only expert to opine on this prong improperly administered the adaptive-functioning assessment directly to Smith, contemporaneously administered other tests to Smith that showed malingering and relied on information that was disputed by other witnesses.
19-1105 Sharp v. Harris (1) Whether, in holding that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals made an “unreasonable determination of the facts,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit contravened the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that “state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt,” as in Cullen v. Pinholster and Woodford v. Visciotti; and (2) whether the OCCA was objectively unreasonable in crediting the testimony of three experts who opined that the respondent, Jimmy Dean Harris, was not intellectually disabled and in not crediting the testimony of the one dissenting doctor, who has been censured, used an outdated test, made no assessment of adaptive functioning and disregarded the influence of factors he acknowledged could influence IQ test scores.
19-1104 Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31 Whether there is a “good faith defense” to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that shields a defendant from damages liability for depriving citizens of their constitutional rights if the defendant acted under color of a law before it was held unconstitutional.
19-1099 City of Bakersfield, California v. Crawford Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it held that evidence of prior incidents that indicate that an individual may be mentally ill could be introduced for the purpose of determining whether an officer used excessive force and/or was negligent even though neither the officer nor his department had any prior knowledge of such incidents.
19-1098 National Football League v. Ninth Inning Inc. (1) Whether an agreement among the members of a joint venture on how best to distribute the venture’s jointly created core product may be condemned under the Sherman Act without requiring the plaintiff to establish that defendants harmed competition in a properly defined antitrust market; and (2) whether, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, antitrust damages claims may be brought by indirect purchasers who do not allege that they paid a price fixed by the alleged conspirators.
19-1094 Dailey v. Florida (1) Whether a defendant advancing a claim under Brady v. Maryland must demonstrate that he or she could not have uncovered the suppressed evidence through the exercise of due diligence; (2) whether the materiality of a Brady claim must be determined by considering the probative force of the withheld evidence cumulatively and in the context of the government’s entire case; and (3) whether the Florida Supreme Court’s error in treating petitioner’s claim under Giglio v. United States as though it alleged knowing use of perjury, when it actually alleged withholding exculpatory evidence, warrants reversal.
19-1091 Evans v. Sandy City, Utah (1) Whether a government may ban expressive conduct without first trying to advance its interests using less speech-restrictive measures, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held below, in conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th Circuits; and (2) whether a government may ban all expressive conduct in or near roadways on the ground that doing so is necessary to eliminate the risk of traffic accidents, as the 10th Circuit held below, in conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court and the 1st, 4th and 9th Circuits.
19-1085 Deasey v. Slater Whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, a merely “sufficiently analogous” case is enough to show that the law is “clearly established,” or whether something more is required, i.e., a “closely analogous” case finding the alleged violation unlawful.
19-1067 Browder v. Nehad Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity to a police officer who responded to a midnight emergency call about a suspect threatening others with a knife, encountered that suspect in a dark alley walking towards him holding a metallic object within seconds upon arriving at the scene, and used deadly force.
19-1065 Johnson v. Alaska (1) Whether the confrontation clause prohibits the prosecution from introducing into evidence at trial a certified lab report reflecting statements of nontestifying analysts through a surrogate expert who, although a supervisor at the lab, merely reviewed the report and results and did not conduct or observe any of the underlying tests; and (2) whether the confrontation clause prohibits the surrogate expert from testifying at trial about the underlying tests, including the particular samples tested, procedures followed and results reached.
19-1062 CJ CheilJedang Corp. v. Int'l Trade Commission Whether, to avoid prosecution-history estoppel under Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., “the rationale underlying the amendment” must be the rationale the patentee provided to the public at the time of the amendment.
19-1061 Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company Whether, under Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.’s “tangential” exception to prosecution-history estoppel, patent owners may recapture subject matter they could have claimed in prosecution but did not, by arguing that they surrendered more than they needed to during prosecution to address a rejection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
19-1059 Hamm v. Tennessee Whether police violate the Fourth Amendment when they conduct a suspicionless search of a probationer's home.
19-1058 Hospira Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company Whether a patentee may recapture subject matter via the doctrine of equivalents under the “tangential relation” exception by arguing that it surrendered more than it needed to during prosecution to avoid a prior-art rejection, even if a claim could reasonably have been drafted that would literally have encompassed the alleged equivalent.
19-1046 Albence v. Ragbir (1) Whether the respondent, Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir, stated a cognizable constitutional claim regarding the selective enforcement of the immigration laws; and (2) whether the suspension clause guarantees a right to file a habeas petition challenging the revocation of an administrative stay of removal.
19-1039 PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey Whether the Natural Gas Act delegates to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate-holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent-domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest.
19-1037 Bun v. U.S. Whether a defendant is “unable to stand trial” within the meaning of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers when he or she has a motion pending before the trial court.
19-1035 Rose v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. Whether 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the automatic bankruptcy stay as to property of the bankruptcy estate.
19-1033 Cantú v. Moody Whether a plaintiff may pursue a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics alleging that a federal officer fabricated evidence.
19-1031 Capron v. Office of the Attorney General of the Massachusetts Whether federal law preempts the application of state and local labor laws to the terms and conditions of participation in the federal au pair program.
19-1029 Austin v. Illinois (1) Whether strict First Amendment scrutiny applies to a criminal law that prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of non-obscene nude or sexually oriented visual material; and (2) whether the First Amendment requires a law that prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of non-obscene nude or sexually oriented visual material to impose a requirement of specific intent to harm or harass the individual(s) depicted.
19-1026 Ford Motor Company v. U.S. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding, contrary to Supreme Court precedent, that a product’s post-importation modification and use can determine its classification under a tariff heading that is not statutorily “controlled by use”; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding, in conflict with the decisions of the other 12 circuits, that an appellee must brief issues not decided by the trial court or raised by the appellant to preserve them for remand.
19-1022 Matthews v. Barr Whether a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act—that noncitizens may be removed and are ineligible for many forms of discretionary relief if “convicted of … a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment”—encompasses a crime of “child endangerment,” a different child-related offense that criminalizes an individual act—like leaving a child briefly unattended—that creates some risk of potential harm to a child, even if no harm results.
19-1010 Actavis Holdco U.S. Inc. v. Connecticut Whether, contrary to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b), the Supreme Court’s decisions and the decisions of five U.S. courts of appeals, a district court may compel a party that has not engaged in discovery-related misconduct to produce documents that are neither relevant nor responsive.
19-1009 Altera Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1) Whether the Treasury Department’s regulation requiring related companies (such as parents and subsidiaries) to share the cost of stock-based employee compensation is arbitrary and capricious and thus invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; (2) whether, under Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., the regulation may be upheld on a rationale that the agency never advanced during rulemaking; and (3) whether a procedurally defective regulation may be upheld under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. on the ground that the agency has offered a “permissible” interpretation of the statute in litigation.
19-988 Living Essentials, LLC v. Washington Whether the prior-substantiation doctrine—which makes a commercial speaker liable if it lacks adequate “substantiation” for its factual claims before making them in an advertisement, even if the speech is never proven to be false—violates the First Amendment.
19-975 Center for Biological Diversity v. Wolf Whether Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996—which grants the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security unfettered discretion to waive all federal, and related state, local, and tribal laws, regulations and legal requirements, and sets forth no standards or criteria to apply in determining whether such waiver is necessary for expeditious border-wall construction—violates the separation of powers, the nondelegation doctrine and the presentment clause of the Constitution.
19-953 Farrar v. Williams Whether the due process clause is violated when the prosecution relies on material, perjured testimony to secure a conviction but did not know the testimony was perjured until after the trial, as six courts have held, or whether the prosecution’s contemporaneous knowledge of the perjured testimony is required, as eight courts have held.
19-939 Gustus v. U.S. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 111, which criminalizes “assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees” of the federal government, is a specific-intent or general-intent offense.
19-933 Monex Deposit Company v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (1) Whether 7 U.S.C. § 9, the Commodity Exchange Act’s “prohibition against manipulation,” empowers the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to punish conduct that does not manipulate any commodities market, simply because the conduct involves a retail transaction in a commodity; and (2) whether the CFTC violated fundamental principles of due process when it abruptly reversed its 30-year position that the petitioner Monex Deposit Company's business model was not subject to the CFTC’s regulatory authority and retroactively applied its new and incorrect position in this $290 million enforcement action.
19-924 Indiana v. Ruiz Whether, when analyzing whether a station-house interview is a custodial interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona, the ordinary security features and layout of a police station weigh in favor of a determination that the interview was “custodial.”
19-868 Miner v. Picatti Whether a court may decline, in an excessive-force case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to address an argument that, on the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, officials did not violate the plaintiff ’s clearly established constitutional rights, based solely on its determination that genuine disputes of fact exist.
19-847 Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine Whether it violates the First Amendment to designate a labor union to represent and speak for public-sector employees who object to its advocacy on their behalf.
19-839 Eastern Oregon Mining Association v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Whether the Clean Water Act regulates activities that simply move preexisting material, such as rock, sand and gravel, within a “navigable water.”
19-814 McCoy v. U.S. Whether officers can presume that a person is “armed and presently dangerous” simply because the person possesses any amount of marijuana, however small.
19-793 Institute for Free Speech v. Becerra (1) Whether a state official’s demand for all significant donors to a nonprofit organization, as a precondition to engaging in constitutionally protected speech, constitutes a First Amendment injury; and (2) whether official demands for membership or donor information outside the electoral context should be reviewed under strict or exacting scrutiny.
19-673 Luna-Garcia v. Barr Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), a noncitizen is entitled to written notice of the time and date of her removal proceedings when she provides a foreign address to the U.S. attorney general as the “address ... at which [she] may be contacted” under Section 1229(a)(1)(F)(i).
19-638 N. B. D. v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services Whether federal law requires state courts of competent jurisdiction to make predicate findings for special immigrant juvenile status determinations upon request. CVSG: 5/21/2020.
19-520 Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany Whether the Federal Republic of Germany, a foreign state, is subject to jurisdiction under the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for claims to property that was taken in violation of international law because Germany’s instrumentality (and possessor of the property at issue), Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, is engaged in commercial activity in the United States. CVSG: 5/26/2020.
19-453 Cargill v. Doe I (1) Whether the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute is displaced by allegations that a U.S. company generally conducted oversight of its foreign operations at its headquarters and made operational and financial decisions there, even though the conduct alleged to violate international law occurred in – and the plaintiffs suffered their injuries in – a foreign country; and (2) whether a domestic corporation is subject to liability in a private action under the Alien Tort Statute. CVSG: 5/26/2020.
19-416 Nestlé USA v. Doe I Whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute may overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity; and (2) whether the judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations. CVSG: 5/26/2020.
19-351 Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp (1) Whether the “expropriation exception” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human-rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property; and (2) whether the doctrine of international comity is unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, and even when the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims. CVSG: 5/26/2020.
19-185 Mutond v. Lewis (1) Whether a plaintiff can preclude conduct-based immunity for foreign government officials merely by suing them in their personal capacities; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act abrogates all common-law conduct-based immunity for foreign officials, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held below, or leaves immunity intact, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 9th Circuits have held. CVSG: 5/26/2020.
18-1447 Republic of Hungary v. Simon (1) Whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, in a matter in which former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II but the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies; and (2) in a forum non conveniens analysis, whether a district court is required to defer to the plaintiffs’ choice of a U.S. forum when the case’s sole connection to the United States is that some named plaintiffs (representing a putative worldwide class) became naturalized citizens after the time relevant to the complaint, and is permitted to defer to a foreign sovereign defendant’s comity interest in hosting claims in its own courts, when the plaintiffs allege that the sovereign defendant harmed its own nationals on its own soil and the plaintiffs have not exhausted local remedies. CVSG: 5/26/2020.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
19-648 CACI Premier Technology Inc. v. Al Shimari Whether an order denying a federal contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is an immediately appealable final order under the collateral-order doctrine.
19-255 Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (1) Whether exacting scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies to disclosure requirements that burden nonelectoral, expressive association rights; and (2) whether California’s disclosure requirement violates charities’ and their donors’ freedom of association and speech facially or as applied to the Thomas More Law Center.
19-251 Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra Whether the exacting scrutiny the Supreme Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context – as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson and its progeny – can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.
Term Snapshot
At a Glance
Awards