Breaking News

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)
19-7320 Rogers v. U.S. (1) Whether bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113, which may be committed by unintentionally intimidating a victim or by presenting a teller with a demand note, has as an element “the use of physical force against the person or property of another” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A); and (2) whether bank robbery by intimidation qualifies as a “crime of violence” under Section 924(c)’s elements clause, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and many other circuits have held, although some other circuits have recently determined that similar state statutes do not qualify as “violent felonies” under the elements clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act.
20-391 Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, Missouri Whether a reasonable jury could find that officers used excessive force when they put a handcuffed and shackled person face-down on the ground and pressed into his back until he suffocated.
20-1084 Dunn v. Reeves Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by readily attributing error to the state court in violation of Woodford v. Visciotti.
20-6199 Hernandez v. Peery (1) Whether a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”) should routinely be granted where the state courts and state judges have divided on the merits of the constitutional question as held by the 5th and 7th Circuits, several District Courts and three justices of this Court, or should courts deny a COA despite the dispute among reasonable state jurists as held by the 9th Circuit and District Court below; (2) whether, as a threshold matter, Petitioner made a showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether his petition should have been resolved in a different manner where the California Supreme Court’s published opinion created a split with every state and lower federal court since Perry v. Leeke, which have held that a trial court order that violates the “defendant’s right to unrestricted access to his lawyer for advice on a variety of trial-related matters” is structural error, reversible per se; and (3) whether the 9th Circuit improperly looked beyond the threshold inquiry of whether a COA is merited and decided the merits without jurisdiction in contravention of this Court’s holding in Buck v. Davis, where different state court judges reached opposite conclusions on Petitioner’s constitutional claim and where all lower federal and state court authority disagrees with the California Supreme Court’s holding on this constitutional claim.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
20-1536 U.S. v. Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that Congress intended to afford insurers an implied money-damages remedy as compensation for cost-sharing reduction payments that were not made because the government determined that it lacked an appropriation to pay them and that could generally be offset under other provisions of the Affordable Care Act that insurers invoked to obtain a recovery.
20-1452 Sasso v. Warsaw Orthopedic Inc. Whether this is a case “arising under” federal patent laws under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) within the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1) when cross-respondents chose not to remove an earlier, underlying state court breach-of-contract case and instead litigated for four years in state court and then, on the eve of the state court jury trial after discovery closed, filed this federal declaratory judgment action claiming that inoperative contractual language transformed this breach-of-contract claim into a patent case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts.
20-1432 U.S. v. Maine Community Health Options Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in concluding that Congress intended to afford insurers an implied money-damages remedy as compensation for cost-sharing reduction payments that were not made because Congress declined to appropriate funds to pay them and that could generally be offset under other provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that insurers invoked to obtain a recovery.
20-1293 AbbVie Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission Whether the subjective element of the “sham litigation” exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity may be met by an inference from a finding that a challenged lawsuit was objectively baseless, even without evidence that the antitrust defendant actually believed the suit lacked merit or was indifferent to the outcome.
20-1284 Warsaw Orthopedic Inc. v. Sasso Whether a federal court with exclusive jurisdiction over a claim may abstain in favor of a state court with no jurisdiction over that claim.
20-1244 Tully v. Okeson (1) Whether Indiana violates the 26th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by giving voters age 65 and older the right to cast an absentee ballot by mail while requiring otherwise identical voters age 18 to 64 to cast their ballots in-person; and (2) whether, in circumstances where in-person voting presents special dangers, Indiana’s absentee voting scheme violates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by burdening the right to vote of voters age 18 to 64.
20-1233 Gatewood v. U.S. (1) Whether cause exists to excuse a habeas petitioner’s procedural default when near-unanimous circuit precedent foreclosed the petitioner’s claim; and (2) whether cause exists to excuse a habeas petitioner’s procedural default when the Supreme Court explicitly overrules one of its precedents.
20-1200 Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative v. U.S. Whether the United States may invoke a non-statutory mitigation defense to avoid the unambiguous requirement of Section 1402 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that the government “shall make” cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers in set amounts.
20-1180 Territory of American Samoa v. National Marine Fisheries Service Whether the Deeds of Cession, by which the territory of American Samoa became part of the United States, establish binding and enforceable obligations on the United States and its agencies.
20-1162 Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. Whether the government is required to pay insurers the full amount of the cost-sharing reduction payments required by the unambiguous shall-pay language of Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act.
20-1123 Hamilton v. Speight (1) Whether the First Amendment right to free speech protects using a person’s actual likeness without permission when weighed against that person’s property, privacy and dignity rights against unauthorized use of his likeness; and (2) whether the First Amendment right to free speech protects a video game maker’s unauthorized use of a person’s face and voice in a game.
20-1113 American Hospital Association v. Cochran Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council applies to a statutory interpretation question that determines both the lawfulness of agency action and the court’s jurisdiction.
20-1092 Jones v. U.S. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 514(a) — which prohibits the use of “any false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing, representing, purporting, or contriving through scheme or artifice, to be an actual [government] security or other financial instrument” — prohibits only the use of nonexistent types of documents and instruments (as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th Circuits have held), or whether it also covers the use of fake versions of actual, existing types of documents and instruments (as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 11th and, in this case, 2nd Circuit have held).
20-1056 Wolfe v. Virginia Whether a state court can avoid the federal constitutional issues raised by a vindictive prosecution claim, which challenges the state’s constitutional authority to convict and impose sentence, by applying a forfeiture rule that itself does not comply with constitutional due process.
20-1029 City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas Inc. Whether the Austin city code’s distinction between on-premise signs, which may be digitized, and off-premise signs, which may not, is a facially unconstitutional content-based regulation under Reed v. Town of Gilbert.
20-886 McCoy v. U.S. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in applying the test from Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp., which prohibits discharge unless the debtor can prove, among other things, a “total incapacity” to repay the debt in the future, instead of the totality test to determine whether a debtor would suffer an “undue hardship” absent discharge of her student loan debt.
20-875 Kong v. City of Burnsville, Minnesota Whether, on interlocutory review of a denial of qualified immunity, an appellate court may reject a district court’s determination of a genuine issue of material fact even if the record does not blatantly contradict that determination.
20-860 Gilbertson v. U.S. Whether the Sixth Amendment prohibits a court from imposing criminal restitution on a defendant based on facts not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
20-836 Broadway v. U.S. (1) Whether courts owe deference to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary when it expands the scope of the Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) whether the rule of lenity and the right to due process preclude deference under Stinson v. United States when commentary to a Sentencing Guideline would increase a sentence.
20-579 Tabb v. U.S. (1) Whether courts may defer to Sentencing Guidelines commentary without first determining that the underlying guideline is genuinely ambiguous; and (2) whether the U.S. Sentencing Commission can use commentary to rewrite a guideline that applies to “prohibit[ions]” on the “distribution” of drugs to apply to conspiracies and attempts to distribute drugs.
20-489 Bess v. U.S. (1) Whether 10 U.S.C. § 825, which allows a military commander to hand select members to sit on a general court-martial panel, as applied in Pedro Bess’ case — in which an all-white panel convicted a Black defendant of sexual misconduct against a white woman — violates the Fifth Amendment; and (2) whether the lower court erred in declining to remand Bess' case for additional factfinding.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22o143 Mississippi v. Tennessee (1) Whether the Court will grant Mississippi leave to file an original action to seek relief from respondents’ use of a pumping operation to take approximately 252 billion gallons of high-quality groundwater; (2) whether Mississippi has sole sovereign authority over and control of groundwater naturally stored within its borders, including in sandstone within Mississippi’s borders; and (3) whether Mississippi is entitled to damages, injunctive, and other equitable relief for the Mississippi intrastate groundwater intentionally and forcibly taken by respondents. CVSG: 5/12/2015.
22O154 New Hampshire v. Massachusetts Whether Massachusetts' tax rule — which subjects nonresident earned income received for services performed outside Massachusetts to the state’s income tax — is unconstitutional confiscation.
20A169 Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services Whether the Supreme Court should vacate the stay, pending appeal, of a judgment that would end the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's nationwide moratorium on evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic because the moratorium is not authorized by the Public Health Service Act of 1944.
20-1709 Pon v. U.S. Whether an appellate court reviewing a cold criminal trial record may determine that an error at trial was harmless by applying an “overwhelming evidence of guilt” test that considers only the potential effect of the error on the government’s case and not on the defense.
20-1704 Simmons v. U.S. Whether a court can summarily dismiss a pro se habeas petition as untimely for failure to adequately allege a causal connection when petitioner explains how a government impediment “prevented” him from filing timely but does not allege with specificity how he discovered and attempted to remedy that impediment.
20-1698 Palade v. Board of Trustees University of Arkansas System Whether the lower courts erred in holding that Petitioners lacked standing to seek declaratory relief concerning the retroactive application of newly revised policies concerning the grounds for dismissal and academic discipline to faculty who are on the tenure-track and faculty who have already earned tenure under prior Board of Trustees policies.
20-1693 Osby v. U.S. Whether basing a criminal defendant’s sentence on charges of which the jury acquitted him violates the Fifth or Sixth Amendments.
20-1678 Crowe v. Oregon State Bar Whether the statute that compels attorneys to subsidize Oregon State Bar’s political and ideological speech is subject to “exacting” scrutiny.
20-1676 Public Watchdogs v. Southern California Edison Company Whether the Hobbs Act deprives a federal district court of subject matter jurisdiction over state law and Price-Anderson Act claims asserted by a private actor against private party Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees, on the ground such claims are “ancillary or incidental to” an NRC final order.
20-1673 Nettles v. Midland Funding, LLC (1) Whether, under Spokeo, it is sufficient for standing simply to allege a violation of the procedural rights created by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as six circuits have held, or must a plaintiff also always allege an additional injury beyond such a violation, as five circuits (including the 7th in this case) have held; and (2) whether some additional injury is required for standing under the Act, whether it is sufficient to allege mental distress or lost time dealing with a violation of the Act, as the 4th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits have held, or whether something more than mental distress or lost time is required, as the 7th (in this case) and 9th Circuits have held.
20-1668 City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma v. Bond (1) Whether use of force that is reasonable at the moment it is employed can nonetheless violate the Fourth Amendment if the officers recklessly or deliberately created the need to use force; and (2) whether it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that advancing toward an intoxicated individual wielding a deadly weapon inside a garage was a “reckless” act that would render unconstitutional any subsequent use of lethal force in response to a threat to officer safety.
20-1648 Fischer v. Forrest (1) Whether the name of the author of a copyrighted work is copyright management information or whether it must also be apparent from context that the name is copyright-related; and (2) whether the name of the copyright owner of a copyrighted work is copyright management information or whether it must also be apparent from context that the name is copyright-related.
20-1643 Baisley v. Int'l Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Whether opt-out procedures for collecting union fees for ideological and political activities violate the First Amendment or the Railway Labor Act.
20-1641 Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita (1) Whether a group health plan that provides uniform reimbursement of all dialysis treatments observe the prohibition provided by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that group health plans may not “take into account” the fact that a plan participant with end stage renal disease is eligible for Medicare benefits; (2) whether a plan that provides the same dialysis benefits to all plan participants, and reimburses dialysis providers uniformly regardless of whether the patient has end stage renal disease, observe the prohibition under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that a group health plan also may not “differentiate” between individuals with end stage renal disease and others “in the benefits it provides”; and (3) whether the Medicare Secondary Payer Act is a coordination-of-benefits measure designed to protect Medicare, not an antidiscrimination law designed to protect certain providers from alleged disparate impact of uniform treatment.
20-1614 Leontaritis v. U.S. (1) Whether, if a jury is instructed to “determine” a fact by indicating a “unanimous finding beyond a reasonable doubt” and does so, the resulting verdict indicates a finding beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to a mere failure to find; and (2) whether, if a jury verdict finds a fact beyond a reasonable doubt, a district court’s sentencing decision must accept the jury’s determination or instead may base the sentence on its own independent finding that contradicts the jury’s.
20-1611 Healthcare Distribution Alliance v. James Whether the New York Opioid Stewardship Act’s surcharge is a “tax” within the meaning of the Tax Injunction Act, despite having features that other circuits repeatedly have held indicative of a punitive fee.
20-1598 Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins (1) Whether a recording law, which makes it a felony for individuals to secretly record under any circumstances, is not facially overbroad under the First Amendment; and (2) whether a party challenging a speech suppressive law has the burden to precisely articulate every type of contemplated speech activity to satisfy ripeness for as-applied challenges.
20-1596 Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm PLLC v. U.S. Whether documents that reflect the client’s identity are protected by the attorney-client privilege when the Government is aware of a citizen’s confidential communication with legal counsel or the motive for seeking advice but is unaware of the citizen’s identity.
20-1587 Louisiana v. Hill (1) Whether a state may require convicted sex offenders to obtain and carry a state identification bearing the words “sex offender” without facially violating the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech; and (2) whether a convicted sex offender has a First Amendment right not to be prosecuted for fraudulently altering a state identification card after scratching off a statutorily required sex offender designation.
20-1573 Viking River Cruises v. Moriana Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement providing that an employee cannot raise representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act.
20-1570 HRB Tax Group v. Snarr Whether California’s public-policy rule declining to enforce agreements for individualized arbitration whenever a plaintiff seeks a public injunction is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
20-1566 Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation Whether a federal court hearing state law claims brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs the claims at issue, or whether it may apply federal common law.
20-1562 Strain v. Regalado Whether a pretrial detainee can prevail against a jail official who disregarded an obvious risk of serious harm or whether the pretrial detainee must prove that the official subjectively knew of and disregarded a serious risk of harm.
20-1541 Pivotal Software v. Tran Whether the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s discovery-stay provision applies to a private action under the Securities Act of 1933 in state or federal court, or solely to a private action in federal court.
20-1539 Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Graham v. Connor and Plumhoff v. Rickard in denying qualified immunity to Daniel Rivas-Villegas based upon the absence of a constitutional violation, by concluding that pushing a suspect down with a foot and briefly placing a knee against the back of a prone, armed suspect while handcuffing him, could constitute excessive force; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisela v. Hughes and numerous other cases by denying qualified immunity even though two judges concluded the use of force was reasonable, and notwithstanding the absence of clearly established law imposing liability under circumstances closely analogous to those confronting Rivas-Villegas.
20-1531 North American Coal Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency Whether 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), which authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to impose standards “for any existing source” based on limits “achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction” that has been “adequately demonstrated,” grants the EPA authority not only to impose standards based on technology and methods that can be applied at and achieved by that existing source, but also allows the agency to develop industry-wide systems like cap-and-trade regimes.
20-1530 West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency Whether, in 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the Clean Air Act, Congress constitutionally authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant rules — including those capable of reshaping the nation’s electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually any sector of the economy — without any limits on what the agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair impacts and energy requirements.
20-1507 Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Grewal (1) Whether a blanket, retrospective and confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without compensation of property that was lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause.
20-1505 Merchant v. Mayorkas Whether the Fourth Amendment requires that searches of electronic devices at the U.S. border be conducted pursuant to a warrant based on probable cause, or at least pursuant to an officer’s determination of reasonable suspicion that the device contains digital contraband.
20-1501 Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell (1) Whether New York’s regulation mandating that employer health insurance plans cover abortions, which burdens a subset of religious organizations by forcing them to cover abortions, is “neutral” and “generally applicable” under Employment Division v. Smith and Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah; (2) whether New York’s mandate interferes with the autonomy of religious entities, in violation of the religion clauses of the First Amendment; and (3) whether — if, under the rule announced in Smith, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment allows states to demand that religious entities opposing abortions subsidize them — Smith should be overruled.
20-1499 American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. (1) Whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, like other Article III courts, has jurisdiction to consider a motion asserting that the First Amendment provides a qualified public right of access to the court’s significant opinions, and whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the denial of such a motion; and (2) whether the First Amendment provides a qualified right of public access to the FISC’s significant opinions.
20-1486 Empire Health Foundation v. Becerra (1) Whether agencies must accurately include key facts and data in notices of proposed rulemaking in order to satisfy the requirements of fair notice and the opportunity for the public to meaningfully comment; and (2) whether, whenever a proposal presents a binary choice of policies, the adoption of one of those policies will always be a “logical outgrowth” of the proposal that can excuse any failure to comply with notice-and-comment obligations.
20-1483 Pilevsky v. Sutton 58 Associates LLC Whether the federal Bankruptcy Code preempts state-law tort claims that are premised on an alleged misuse of bankruptcy proceedings or that seek to impose liability based on the very fact of bankruptcy.
20-1479 Houston v. U.S. Whether a sentencing court must consider applicable sentencing factors codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when deciding whether to impose a reduced sentence under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act.
20-1474 Colone v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County (1) Whether federal statutes must contain express privilege language before courts may decide that Congress intended the statute to create an evidentiary privilege that abrogates the legislated subpoena and discovery rules, and impedes judicial truth-seeking, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits have ruled, or whether courts may read ambiguous silence in statutory text to impliedly create such a privilege, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 3rd and 5th Circuits, and the lower courts in this case, have ruled; and (2) whether the Stored Communications Act yields to judicial process, as the 9th Circuit has presumed, or whether the act impliedly creates a novel, unqualified evidentiary privilege for the Internet that bars judicial subpoenas requested by non-governmental litigants, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, the Ohio State Supreme Court, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the lower courts in this case have ruled.
20-1472 Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Whether the 30-day time limit to file a petition for review in the Tax Court of a notice of determination from the commissioner of internal revenue in 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule subject to equitable tolling.
20-1462 Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC v. Gulf LNG Energy, LLC Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement delegating all questions, including questions of arbitrability, to an arbitrator when a party contends that the claim sought to be arbitrated represents a “collateral attack” on a prior arbitration award.
20-1459 U.S. v. Taylor Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s definition of “crime of violence” excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
20-1453 Cal Cartage Transportation Express, LLC v. California Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act, which expressly preempts state laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier,” preempts state worker-classification laws that have an effect on a motor carrier’s prices and services by discouraging the use of independent contractors.
20-1434 Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services Whether the 14th Amendment bars states from prohibiting abortions that are sought solely because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.
20-1426 Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Whether a state statute that expressly caps punitive damages at two times compensatory damages satisfies the notice requirement of the due process clause such that a punitive damages award that complies with the statute is constitutionally sound under the due process clause.
20-1419 Russell v. New Jersey (1) Whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry arms outside of the home for self-defense; and (2) whether the government may deny law-abiding citizens their exercise of the right to carry a handgun outside of their homes by conditioning the exercise of the right on showings of need.
20-1410 Ruan v. U.S. Whether a physician alleged to have prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice may be convicted of unlawful distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good faith, he “reasonably believed” or “subjectively intended” that his prescriptions fall within that course of professional practice.
20-1391 Sportswear Inc. v. Savannah College of Art and Design Inc. (1) Whether the scope of a federally-registered service mark extends to unrelated goods bearing that service mark; and (2) whether the defendant’s copying of a mark, without proof of consumer confusion as to the source of the parties’ goods or services, establishes trademark infringement merely because consumers recognize the mark.
20-1389 Savage v. U.S. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit properly held — in conflict with decades of federal practice endorsing flexible procedures to assemble a complete record on appeal — that an appellant seeking a complete appellate record must overcome procedural impediments lacking any basis in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10’s text: namely, that when an appellant lacks any “means” to “prepare a statement of” untranscribed “proceedings” under Rule 10(c), the district court has no obligation to assist in reconstructing those proceedings unless the appellant first files a declaration “saying he does not remember what happened,” and that when an appellant wishes to review and supplement the record with undocketed trial correspondence in the district court’s possession, he must first show how the correspondence would “give rise to ‘any difference[s]’ about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court.”
20-1379 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Center for Investigative Reporting Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky overruled or abrogated the court’s holding in Lehman v. City of Shaker Heights that transit authorities have the discretion to categorically prohibit political advertisements.
20-1375 Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Whether, when a court permits an unemancipated minor to have an abortion, the state may require that her parents be notified before the abortion occurs except where such notice would contravene her best interests.
20-1374 CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe (1) Whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 — and by extension Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which incorporates the “enforcement mechanisms” of other federal antidiscrimination statutes — provides a disparate-impact cause of action for plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination; and (2) whether, if Section 504 and the ACA create disparate-impact claims, such claims extend to the facially neutral terms and conditions of health insurance plans.
20-1357 Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado v. Exby-Stolley Whether a plaintiff asserting a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 must show that the employer’s failure to make the requested accommodation affected the “terms, conditions, [or] privileges of employment" — that is, whether the employee must show that the failure to accommodate amounted to an adverse employment action.
20-1354 City of Portland, Oregon v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in upholding the Federal Communications Commission’s interpretation of “effect of prohibiting” in light of its plain meaning, lack of a limiting standard and National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services; and (2) whether the divided 9th Circuit erred in affirming the FCC’s interpretation of 47 U.S.C. § 253 to mandate access, at cost, to public property for private commercial use.
20-1349 Threatt v. Farrell Whether, and to what degree, a district court must consider counsel’s lodestar in awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h).
20-1334 Boardman v. Inslee Whether a law that skews the debate over the value of public-sector unions and undermines public-sector employees’ opt-out rights by giving incumbent unions exclusive access to information necessary to communicate with public-sector employees is consistent with the First Amendment.
20-1313 Shivkov v. Artex Risk Solutions Inc. (1) Whether an agreement that specifies arbitration before the American Arbitration Association as the default dispute-resolution method also must specifically mention the AAA rules to avoid being considered ambiguous about whether the parties intended to apply the AAA rules; and (2) whether the availability of class arbitration is a matter for an arbitrator to decide, or for a court to decide.
20-1312 Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation Whether, for purposes of calculating additional payment for hospitals that serve a “significantly disproportionate number of low-income patients,” the secretary of health and human services has permissibly included in a hospital’s Medicare fraction all of the hospital’s patient days of individuals who satisfy the requirements to be entitled to Medicare Part A benefits, regardless of whether Medicare paid the hospital for those particular days.
20-1306 Walker v. Mississippi (1) Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court failed to adhere to the Supreme Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence requiring counsel in a capital case to conduct a thorough investigation of their client’s background and history, and that purported “tactical” decisions are only reasonable to the extent they are based on such an investigation; and (2) whether Alan Walker was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the preparation and presentation of mitigation at his capital trial.
20-1287 Recovery Innovations Inc. v. Rawson Whether through the provision of mental health services, a private, nonprofit hospital and private health care providers become state actors, subject to claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when they provide mental health services to a person who was deemed to be “gravely disabled” and to “present[] a likelihood of serious harm to others” under the state’s involuntary commitment law.
20-1279 Castañon v. U.S. Whether the three-judge district court erred by holding that residents of the District of Columbia are not entitled to voting representation in the House of Representatives because they do not live in a “State,” even though (1) Americans living overseas and residents of “federal enclaves” have voting representation in Congress despite not being State residents, (2) Congress has concluded that it may extend voting rights to District residents under the “District Clause” of the Constitution, Article I, Section 17, Clause 8, and (3) the Supreme Court has held that the right to vote is the most fundamental of all rights because it is preservative of all other rights.
20-1263 Gallardo v. Marstiller Whether the federal Medicaid Act provides for a state Medicaid program to recover reimbursement for Medicaid’s payment of a beneficiary’s past medical expenses by taking funds from the portion of the beneficiary’s tort recovery that compensates for future medical expenses.
20-1246 Valentine v. Phillips (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) when it failed to apply the proper, heightened and deferential standard to the district court’s expert witness credibility determination; and (2) whether the 6th Circuit usurped the district court’s expert witness gatekeeping function when it held that the district court should have credited the testimony of Johnny Phillips’s expert — and granted Phillips’s petition — simply because that testimony was not blatantly self-serving or dishonest.
20-1203 Jooce v. Food and Drug Administration (1) Whether a regulation may be ratified if the appointments clause prohibited the purported agent’s exercise of rulemaking authority; and (2) whether, if so, the ratification must comply with the constraints that would normally govern an officer’s rulemaking, such as the Administrative Procedure Act’s “reasoned decision-making” requirement.
20-1163 Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm Whether Title IX or the equal protection clause requires schools to let transgender students use multi-user restrooms designated for the opposite biological sex, even when single-user restrooms are available for all students regardless of gender identity.
20-1141 Doe Company v. U.S. (1) Whether an appealing party’s substantial interest in a disclosure order directing a disinterested third party to produce documents provides appellate jurisdiction under Perlman v. United States, when that interest will be lost absent immediate appellate review; and (2) whether a federal court lacks specific personal jurisdiction to enforce a subpoena that is directed to a foreign recipient and demands the production of documents that are unrelated to the recipient’s contacts with the United States.
20-1129 Flynn v. U.S. (1) Whether the due process clause of the United States Constitution, as discussed in McCarthy v. United States and more recent decisions of the Supreme Court, requires discussion in open court of the elements of an 18 U.S.C. § 371 conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (Klein Conspiracy) offense to advise the defendant of the nature of the charges against him before a guilty plea is accepted; (2) whether the requirement for a nexus between a particular administrative proceeding and a taxpayer’s conduct is necessary to save the constitutionality of a conviction under an 18 U.S.C. § 371 conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (Klein Conspiracy) after the Supreme Court’s decision in Marinello v. United States; and (3) whether a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury trial to determine the amount of restitution under either the Sixth or Seventh Amendments to the United States Constitution.
20-1088 Carson v. Makin Whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal protection clause of the United States Constitution by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise generally available student-aid program from choosing to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious, or “sectarian,” instruction.
20-1057 Oracle America Inc. v. U.S. (1) Whether a bid protest that establishes a violation of federal law may be denied for “harmless error” based on a rationale not present in the administrative record; and (2) whether, in resolving a bid protest that establishes a violation of the criminal conflict-of-interest statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can enforce the contract based on deference to an agency’s assessment that the criminal violation did not taint the procurement.
20-1026 Eagle Trust Fund v. U.S. Postal Service (1) Whether the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 impliedly bars non-Administrative Procedure Act review, including claims of arbitrary-and-capricious conduct or failure to follow the U.S. Postal Service’s own rules; and (2) whether the PRA violates Article III as applied to bar judicial review of USPS adjudications.
20-1006 City of Hayward, California v. Stoddard-Nunez (1) Whether an accelerating fleeing driver’s sudden turn deprives a threatened shooting officer of qualified immunity; and (2) whether an unintended victim-passenger of a fleeing vehicle is “seized” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.
20-685 Biden v. Sierra Club (1) Whether the Sierra Club has a cognizable cause of action to obtain review of the secretary of defense’s compliance with 10 U.S.C. § 2808 in reprioritizing appropriated but unobligated funds for the military construction projects involving border barriers being authorized; and (2) whether the secretary exceeded his statutory authority under Section 2808 in reprioritizing appropriated funds for the military construction projects following the president’s declaration of a national emergency requiring the use of the armed forces at the southern border.
20-257 Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. v. Scott Whether a district court may consider factors other than the presence of a single material question of law or fact common to a group of employees when assessing whether the employees are “similarly situated” for purposes of the collective-action provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
19-1401 Hughes v. Northwestern University Whether allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment products or services are sufficient to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach of the duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B).

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22O152 Montana and Wyoming v. Washington Whether Washington state’s denial of port access to ship Montana and Wyoming coal to foreign markets violates the commerce clause. CVSG: 5/25/2021.
20-1199 Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College (1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives.
20-1034 Golan v. Saada Whether, upon finding that return to the country of habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding the grave risk finding.
20-994 Volkswagen Group of America Inc. v. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, Florida Whether the Clean Air Act preempts state and local governments from regulating manufacturers’ post-sale, nationwide updates to vehicle emission systems.
20-905 Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H. ex rel. L.H. and S.D. Whether the continuing-violation doctrine applies to the two-year statutory time limit to file an administrative complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
20-891 American Axle & Manufacturing Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC (1) What standard determines whether a patent claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and (2) whether patent eligibility (at each step of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework) is a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of art at the time of the patent.
20-772 Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor v. Murphy Whether, under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, an interstate compact agency may sue a state official to prevent that official from implementing a state law that would be preempted under a congressionally approved interstate compact.
20-609 Gannett Co. v. Quatrone Whether a plaintiff adequately pleads breach of the duties of prudence and diversification solely by alleging that fiduciaries permitted participants in a defined contribution plan to choose, from an adequately diversified menu of investment options, to invest in an undiversified single-stock fund.
20-603 Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety Whether Congress has the power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its constitutional war powers.
20-493 Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas Whether the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act provides the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the act’s legislative history and the Supreme Court’s holding in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, or whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision affirming Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas (Ysleta I) correctly subjects the pueblo to all Texas gaming regulations.
20-402 Richardson v. Omaha School District Whether, for attorneys’ fees actions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, courts should borrow years-long state statutes of limitations because fees actions are analogous to independent lawsuits separate from the underlying merits of the IDEA administrative proceedings, or, in contrast, courts should borrow far shorter periods designed for judicial review of IDEA administrative merits decisions because fees actions are merely ancillary to the underlying educational dispute. CVSG: 5/25/2021.
20-319 Comcast Corp. v. Viamedia Inc. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred in holding that a refusal-to-deal claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act may proceed despite the presence of valid business justifications for the refusal, in direct conflict with Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko and decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits; and (2) whether the 7th Circuit erred in allowing a plaintiff to avoid the limitations on a Section 2 refusal-to-deal claim by reframing it as some other form of anticompetitive conduct, such as tying, in direct conflict with Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Linkline Communications Inc. and decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 9th and 10th Circuits. CVSG: 5/25/2021.
20-219 Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C. Whether the compensatory damages available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the statutes that incorporate its remedies for victims of discrimination, such as the Rehabilitation Act and the Affordable Care Act, include compensation for emotional distress. CVSG: 5/25/2021.
20-28 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP v. Laurent Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit improperly combined parts of two separate remedial sections under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, interpreting Section 502(a)(3) to permit reformation of a plan solely as a preparatory step to ultimate relief under Section 502(a)(1)(B) in the form of money damages. CVSG: 5/25/2021.
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. CVSG: 8/26/2020.