Skip to content

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 (10)

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
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.
24-1078 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.
24-1099 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.
24-1159 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.
24-1260 Watson v. Republican National Committee Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.
24-5191 Veneno v. U.S. (1) Whether Presley v. Georgia's requirement that courts "consider alternatives to closure even when they are not offered by the parties" before closing the courtroom during a criminal trial applies even if the court intends to stream the trial via audio, video, or both; (2) when no court order is sought or made on a defendant’s right to a public trial, what qualifies as an “opportunity to object” to the denial of that right under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 51(b); and (3) whether the court should overrule United States v. Kagama and hold that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to criminalize conduct between members of the same Tribe that occurs on Tribal land, or at least clarify the constitutional foundation on which Congress may criminalize such conduct.
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.
25-51 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.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference (7)

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
25-125 Davis v. Ermold (1) Whether the First Amendment free exercise clause provides an affirmative defense to tort liability based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages in the same manner as the free speech clause under Snyder v. Phelps; (2) whether a government official stripped of Eleventh Amendment immunity and sued in her individual capacity based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages is entitled to assert individual capacity and personal First Amendment defenses in the same or similar manner as any other individual defendant like in Snyder; and (3) whether Obergefell v. Hodges and substantive due process should be overturned.
25-52 Clark v. Sweeney (1) Whether the Fourth Circuit violated the party-presentation principle by granting federal habeas relief based on putative errors in the state trial proceedings that the respondent never alleged; (2) whether the Fourth Circuit improperly circumvented the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's exhaustion requirement by applying a “special circumstances” exception derived from Frisbie v. Collins and Granberry v. Greer; and (3) whether the Fourth Circuit flouted the AEDPA merits standard by granting federal habeas relief in the absence of clearly established federal law as determined by the holdings of the Supreme Court.
25-5 Noem v. Al Otro Lado Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.
24-1322 Barings, LLC v. AG Centre Street Partnership Whether an appellate court can materially alter a consummated plan of reorganization without permitting a new vote of creditors or whether a material alteration by an appellate court requires a vacatur of the order confirming the plan and a new creditor vote.
24-1309 East Penn Mfg. Co. v. Chavez-DeRemer (1) Whether time spent on “integral and indispensable” activities is measured based on reasonable duration or actual duration; and (2) whether the court should overrule Steiner v. Mitchell.
24-1267 Densmore v. Colorado Whether custodial interrogation by a child-protection caseworker is subject to Miranda’s requirements where the interrogation concerns matters that may trigger the caseworker’s legal duty to report to law enforcement.
24-1196 Collymore v. U.S. Whether a district court may impose consecutive terms of imprisonment for convictions of attempt and conspiracy under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), that share the same object and arise from the identical course of conduct.

Featured Petitions (44)

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
25-365 Trump v. Barbara Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.
25-364 Trump v. Washington Whether Executive Order No. 14,160 complies on its face with the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and with 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which codifies that clause.
25-253 Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, is enforceable by private plaintiffs through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, an implied right of action, or both.
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.
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.
25-233 Miller v. Civil Rights Department (1) Whether the free speech clause’s protection against compelled participation in a ceremony only applies where third parties would view that participation as expressing endorsement of the ceremony; (2) whether proving a lack of general applicability under the free exercise clause requires showing unfettered discretion or categorical exemptions for identical secular conduct; and (3) whether Employment Division v. Smith should be overruled.
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.
25-132 West Virginia Citizens Defense League v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Whether a federal law that bans licensed sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
25-125 Davis v. Ermold (1) Whether the First Amendment free exercise clause provides an affirmative defense to tort liability based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages in the same manner as the free speech clause under Snyder v. Phelps; (2) whether a government official stripped of Eleventh Amendment immunity and sued in her individual capacity based solely on emotional distress damages with no actual damages is entitled to assert individual capacity and personal First Amendment defenses in the same or similar manner as any other individual defendant like in Snyder; and (3) whether Obergefell v. Hodges and substantive due process should be overturned.
25-114 La Anyane v. Georgia (1) Whether Georgia's implied consent statute – under which a driver arrested for driving under the influence who refuses to consent to a blood draw has his driver’s license suspended for at least a year, with the refusal usable as evidence of guilt at a criminal trial – violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine; and (2) whether Georgia's implied consent statute, due to substantial adverse consequences of refusal to consent, is impermissibly coercive so as to render consent involuntary.
25-112 Chatrie v. U.S. (1) Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence derived from a geofence warrant.
25-107 Gilliam v. Gerregano Whether the messages paid for and chosen by car owners on personalized license plates, commonly known as “vanity” plates, are government speech.
25-106 Vines v. U.S. Whether attempted armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d) and the first paragraph of § 2113(a) involves the “use, attempted use, or threatened use of force” in all possible hypothetical circumstances, such that it qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c).
25-83 Jules v. Andre Balazs Properties Whether a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.
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.
25-52 Clark v. Sweeney (1) Whether the Fourth Circuit violated the party-presentation principle by granting federal habeas relief based on putative errors in the state trial proceedings that the respondent never alleged; (2) whether the Fourth Circuit improperly circumvented the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's exhaustion requirement by applying a “special circumstances” exception derived from Frisbie v. Collins and Granberry v. Greer; and (3) whether the Fourth Circuit flouted the AEDPA merits standard by granting federal habeas relief in the absence of clearly established federal law as determined by the holdings of the Supreme Court.
25-50 Fitzhugh v. Patton Whether Article III permits a plaintiff with moot claims to continue a putative class action based on the possibility that a future motion to define the class might later confer standing on some undefined class.
25-43 Freedom Foundation v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters Whether public-sector unions that invoke the aid of state officials to deduct union dues from a nonconsenting public-sector employee act “under color of law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
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.
25-025 Avianca Group Int'l Limited v. Burnham Sterling and Company LLC Whether, for purposes of Section 365(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, the "obligation" of a Chapter 11 debtor under a lease "aris[es]" as soon as the obligation is incurred, rather than when payment becomes due.
25-24 McCoy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (1) Whether federal laws banning 18- to 20-year-olds from purchasing handguns from federally licensed firearm dealers violates the Second Amendment's guarantee of the right to keep arms; and (2) whether the Fourth Circuit erred by finding that the district court's certification of a nationwide class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) constituted an abuse of discretion because the district court's certification came after it granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs but prior to its issuance of a final order.
25-14 Hierholzer v. Loeffler Whether a small-business owner who was denied entry into the Small Business Administration's Section 8(a) Business Development Program for failing to prove “social disadvantage” has Article III standing to challenge a race-based presumption that excuses certain applicants from making that showing.
25-5 Noem v. Al Otro Lado Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.
25-2 Reese v. U.S. Whether the court should overrule Pinkerton v. United States, under which an individual may be convicted of crimes he did not commit – or even participate in – so long as they are the foreseeable result of a conspiracy he joined.
25-1 Skinner v. Louisiana Whether Louisiana courts erred in refusing to apply Wearry v. Cain to an individual's Brady v. Maryland claims.
24-1329 Paris v. Second Amendment Foundation Whether firearms laws imposing a minimum age of 21 violate the purported Second Amendment rights of 18- to 20-year-olds.
24-1322 Barings, LLC v. AG Centre Street Partnership Whether an appellate court can materially alter a consummated plan of reorganization without permitting a new vote of creditors or whether a material alteration by an appellate court requires a vacatur of the order confirming the plan and a new creditor vote.
24-1309 East Penn Mfg. Co. v. Chavez-DeRemer (1) Whether time spent on “integral and indispensable” activities is measured based on reasonable duration or actual duration; and (2) whether the court should overrule Steiner v. Mitchell.
24-1306 Klee v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Whether a public-sector union that invokes the aid of state officials to deduct union dues from a nonconsenting public-sector employee acts “under color of law” for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
24-1305 Todd v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees When a public-sector union gets the government to divert an employee’s pay by stating that he consented to join the union, is it a state actor such that the “clear and compelling evidence” First Amendment standard of Janus applies?
24-1299 Planet Green Cartridges v. Amazon.com Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, immunize internet platforms from civil claims based on their own conduct, including using algorithms to generate targeted advertising and product recommendations for their users?
24-1281 Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC Whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has the authority to conduct administrative adjudications regarding the validity of expired patents, and thereby extinguish private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury, even though the patent owner no longer possesses the right to exclude the public from its invention.
24-1280 Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Apple Inc. Whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has the authority to conduct administrative adjudications regarding the validity of expired patents, and thereby extinguish private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury, even though the patent owner no longer possesses the right to exclude the public from its invention.
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.
24-1267 Densmore v. Colorado Whether custodial interrogation by a child-protection caseworker is subject to Miranda’s requirements where the interrogation concerns matters that may trigger the caseworker’s legal duty to report to law enforcement.
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.
24-1259 Rush v. U.S. Whether the Second Amendment secures the right to possess unregistered short-barreled rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes.
24-1244 McMaster v. Pennsylvania Whether it is an improper expansion of the “emergency aid exception” and/or “protective sweep doctrine” to authorize a warrantless entry into a home without any objective evidence that anyone was in the home and needed aid, where an officer is concerned, based on his experiences involving individuals under the influence of controlled substances, that there could be a person in the home suffering from a potential overdose or medical emergency.
24-1196 Collymore v. U.S. Whether a district court may impose consecutive terms of imprisonment for convictions of attempt and conspiracy under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), that share the same object and arise from the identical course of conduct.
24-1192 Ovation Fund Management II, LLC v. Nossaman LLP Whether a federal court overseeing an equity receivership has the power to enjoin and extinguish claims that belong to non-receivership entities against non-receivership third parties without the claimants’ consent.
24-1185 National Rifle Association v. Glass Whether Florida’s law banning 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing firearms violates the Second 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.
24-994 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 (14)

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
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.
24-1068 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.
24-1062 The Hertz Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Whether an unwritten pre-Code exception overrides the Bankruptcy Code’s express statutory text and allows creditors in solvent-debtor cases to recover amounts that the Code explicitly disallows.
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.
24-759 Wye Oak Technology v. Republic of Iraq (1) Whether, in a breach of contract case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act"s third clause, it is sufficient to prove a "direct effect" in the United States applying traditional causation principles, or instead courts must make an additional finding that the contract at issue established or necessarily contemplated the United States as a place of performance; and (2) whether the "act performed in the United States" giving rise to jurisdiction in an action under the statute"s second clause must be an "act" by the foreign sovereign, or instead the statute"s text contains no such limitation.
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).