| 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. |
| 20A160 |
Rolls Royce PLC v. Servotronics |
Whether the Supreme Court should stay an order by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina authorizing requests by Servotronics, Inc. for U.S. deposition subpoenas to current and former Boeing employees in a foreign arbitration, pending this court’s resolution of Servotronics, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, 20-794. |
| 20A155 |
Slatery v. Bristol Regional Women’s Center, P.C. |
Whether the Supreme Court should stay an injunction issued by a federal district court in Tennessee that struck down a state law instituting a 48-hour waiting period for patients to obtain abortions. |
| 20A150 |
Texas v. Cook County |
Whether the Supreme Court should grant Texas and 13 other states' request for leave to intervene and stay of the Nov. 20, 2020, injunction by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois that prevented the Department of Homeland Security from carrying out its proposed rule preventing unauthorized immigrants who are deemed a "public charge" from attaining lawful permanent resident status. |
| 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. |
| 20-1440 |
Anaya v. Lumpkin |
Whether the Supreme Court’s decisions clearly establish
that a defendant can show he was prejudiced by his
counsel’s deficient performance causing him to reject a
plea offer when the defendant contends without contradiction by the state that the record reveals no particular facts or intervening circumstances suggesting
that the state would have withdrawn, or the trial court
would have rejected, the plea. |
| 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. |
| 20-1432 |
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. |
| 20-1431 |
Brown v. Jones |
Whether, at the first step in Batson v. Kentucky framework and in the absence of
any explanation from the prosecutor, a court may rely on
factors apparent in the record to explain a prosecutor’s
seemingly discriminatory peremptory strike. |
| 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. |
| 20-1394 |
PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Patreon Inc. |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit correctly interpreted
Kessler v. Eldred to create a freestanding preclusion doctrine that
may apply even when claim and issue preclusion do not; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit properly extended its
Kessler doctrine to cases in which the prior judgment was a
voluntary dismissal. |
| 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.” |
| 20-1381 |
Fox v. Summers |
Whether the 14th Amendment due process
right to informational privacy protects information of
a personal, sexual nature related to one’s victimization
from government dissemination absent a compelling
state interest, a question as to which the courts of appeals are in conflict. |
| 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. |
| 20-1373 |
Cole v. Wake County Board of Education |
Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination as to
all “terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment,” or its reach is limited to only
discriminatory employer conduct that courts
determine have significant detrimental effects
on employees. |
| 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. |
| 20-1293 |
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. |
| 20-1287 |
Recovery Innovations Inc. v. Rawson |
Whether through the provision of mental health
services, a private, non-profit hospital and private
healthcare 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. |
| 20-1284 |
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. |
| 20-1279 |
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. |
| 20-1233 |
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. |
| 20-1223 |
Johnson & Johnson v. Ingham |
(1) Whether a court must assess if consolidating multiple plaintiffs for a single trial violates due process,
or whether it can presume that jury instructions always cure both jury confusion and prejudice to the defendant; (2) whether a punitive-damages award violates due
process when it far exceeds a substantial compensatory-damages award, and whether the ratio of punitive to compensatory damages for jointly and severally liable defendants is calculated by assuming that
each defendant will pay the entire compensatory
award; and (3) whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement
for specific personal jurisdiction can be met by merely
showing a “link” in the chain of causation, as the Court of Appeals of Missouri held, or whether a heightened showing of relatedness is required, as the Ford Motor Company in Ford Motor Co. v.
Montana Eighth Judicial District Court
has argued. |
| 20-1210 |
Seneca County, New York v. Cayuga Indian Nation of New York |
Whether tribal sovereign immunity bars local tax
authorities from collecting lawfully imposed property
taxes by foreclosing on real property that a tribe has
acquired on the open market. |
| 20-1207 |
Balbuena v. Cates |
Whether a district court filing that seeks to
amend a habeas petition pending on appeal constitutes a “second or successive” petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. |
| 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. |
| 20-1200 |
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. |
| 20-1199 |
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. |
| 20-1195 |
Kansas Natural Resource Coalition v. Department of the Interior |
(1) Whether a party vindicating a procedural
injury lacks standing unless it can establish with
certainty that procedural compliance would change
the outcome of subsequent agency action; and (2) whether, under the strong presumption
favoring judicial review of agency action, agency
violations of the Congressional Review Act’s rule-submission requirement
are subject to judicial review. |
| 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. |
| 20-1174 |
Lippard v. Holleman |
Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses
prohibit courts from hearing defamation claims that
arise from ecclesiastical settings, even when the
claims can be resolved using neutral principles of law. |
| 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. |
| 20-1162 |
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. |
| 20-1158 |
North American Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention Inc. v. McRaney |
(1) Whether a secular court can, consistent with
the First Amendment’s religion clauses, adjudicate a
minister’s employment-related state-law tort claims
against a religious organization using neutral principles
of tort law; and (2) whether the First Amendment precludes the
adjudication of a minister’s employment-related state-law tort claims only when brought against the legal entity that was the minister’s employer. |
| 20-1148 |
Sellers v. McDonough |
Whether, when a veteran has
submitted an application for disability benefits, the veteran’s claim encompasses all reasonably identifiable conditions within the veteran’s service records. |
| 20-1143 |
Badgerow v. Walters |
Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal
question. |
| 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. |
| 20-1123 |
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. |
| 20-1106 |
Doe v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc. |
(1) Whether, on de novo consideration of a benefits claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, summary judgment must be denied if
there is a genuine dispute of material fact; and (2) whether, on de novo consideration of an ERISA
benefits claim and absent a challenge to the plan’s procedures, a district court has discretion to consider evidence
that was not part of the record before the plan administrator. |
| 20-1095 |
Haws v. Idaho |
Whether a criminal defendant’s purported waiver of
the right to appeal in a plea agreement is knowing,
intelligent and voluntary—as required by the due
process clauses of the Fifth and 14th
Amendments—when the trial court incorrectly
informs the defendant, during the colloquy in which
the court accepts the defendant’s guilty plea, that the
defendant has reserved the right to appeal. |
| 20-1093 |
Just Energy Marketing Corp. v. Hurt |
Whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held, Just Energy Marketing Corp.'s door-to-door solicitors are exempt “outside salesmen”
under the Fair Labor Standards Act or, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held,
the door-to-door solicitors are not exempt
“outside salesmen” under the FLSA because the sales
agreements remain subject to regulatory checks and
Just Energy Marketing Corp.'s ultimate approval. |
| 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). |
| 20-1088 |
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. |
| 20-1084 |
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. |
| 20-1057 |
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. |
| 20-1056 |
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. |
| 20-1044 |
Saul v. Ramsey |
Whether a claimant seeking disability benefits under
the Social Security Act forfeits an
appointments clause challenge to the appointment of
an administrative law judge by failing to present that
challenge during administrative proceedings. |
| 20-1043 |
U.S. v. Cano |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that
the scope of a search of an electronic device under the
border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s
warrant requirement is limited solely to digital contraband on the device itself, and cannot include evidence of
physical smuggling or other border-related crimes. |
| 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. |
| 20-1026 |
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. |
| 20-1019 |
Thompson v. Marietta Education Association |
(1) 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; and (2) whether Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. Knight, which upheld a Minnesota restriction on participation in "meet and confer" sessions to the faculty’s exclusive representative, should be overruled. |
| 20-1010 |
Rranxburgaj v. Mayorkas |
Whether legal determinations antecedent to agencies' discretionary decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal orders "arise from" these decisions for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which provides that "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the U.S. attorney general to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter." |
| 20-1009 |
Shinn v. Ramirez |
Whether application of the equitable rule the Supreme Court
announced in Martinez v. Ryan renders the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which precludes a federal
court from considering evidence outside the state-court record when reviewing the merits of a claim for
habeas relief if a prisoner or his attorney has failed
to diligently develop the claim’s factual basis in state
court, inapplicable to a federal court’s merits
review of a claim for habeas relief. |
| 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. |
| 20-1004 |
Collier v. Dallas County Hospital District |
(1) Whether an employee’s exposure to the N-word
in the workplace is severe enough to send his
Title VII hostile-work-environment claim to a
trier of fact; and (2) whether and in what circumstances racial
epithets in the workplace are “extremely
serious” incidents sufficient to create a hostile
work environment under Title VII, rather than
nonactionable “mere utterances.” |
| 20-1000 |
Dominguez v. U.S. |
Whether attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act qualifies as a “crime of violence,” meaning that it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person or
property of another." |
| 20-951 |
Stewart v. City of Euclid, Ohio |
Whether, when a municipal employee has violated the
Constitution, a plaintiff must point to “clearly
established law” (such as would overcome a defense of
qualified immunity by an individual officer) in order
to prove deliberate indifference for municipal liability
purposes. |
| 20-937 |
Andrews v. New Jersey |
Whether the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth
Amendment protects an individual from being
compelled to recall and truthfully disclose a
memorized passcode, when communicating the
passcode may lead to the discovery of incriminating
evidence to be used against him in a criminal
prosecution. |
| 20-928 |
National Coalition For Men v. Selective Service System |
Whether, in light of the
Department of Defense having lifted the ban on
women in combat, the Supreme Court should overrule Rostker v. Goldberg, which upheld the men-only draft because women at that time were categorically prohibited from serving in combat roles,
and hold that the federal requirement that men but
not women register for the Selective Service, authorized under 50 U.S.C. § 3802(a), violates the right to
equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. |
| 20-923 |
Garland v. Acosta-Pena |
Whether the government must provide written notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), which is required to trigger the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A), in a single document. |
| 20-911 |
Jackson v. Hudson |
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2255 — which allows a person in federal custody to challenge the legality of his detention by filing a post-conviction motion, as well as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the Section 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention” — is “inadequate or ineffective”
when, at the time of petitioner’s initial Section 2255
motion, circuit precedent foreclosed a potential claim,
but that precedent has since been overruled by the Supreme
Court. |
| 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. |
| 20-895 |
Seldin v. Estate of Silverman |
(1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act categorically forecloses
courts from vacating an arbitration award on the
ground that the award is contrary to public policy; and (2) whether the FAA’s protection against an
arbitrator’s “evident partiality” is
triggered when there is a reasonable impression of
partiality, or instead by a more heightened standard
such as a showing of actual bias. |
| 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. |
| 20-886 |
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. |
| 20-880 |
Holland v. Westmoreland Coal Co. |
(1) Whether the exception to the
Anti-Injunction Act in South Carolina v. Regan — in which the Supreme Court held that the
AIA did not bar South Carolina from filing an original-jurisdiction action in the Supreme Court to raise a 10th
Amendment challenge to an income tax assessed on
private citizens — is available to debtors who want to
avoid paying a tax for reasons unrelated to the tax’s
validity; and (2) whether Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act premiums are “any tax” protected by
the Anti-Injunction Act. |
| 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. |
| 20-861 |
Fry v. Rand Construction Corp. |
(1) Whether the lower
court erred in adopting what is, in essence, a
“sole cause” standard for a “but-for”
cause, in direct conflict with the
Supreme Court’s holdings in Burrage v. United States and Bostock v. Clayton County; and (2) whether the correct
causation standard for petitioner Arlene Fry's Family and Medical Leave Act claim is but-for, motivating
factor or negative factor. |
| 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. |
| 20-828 |
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga |
Whether Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 displaces the state-secrets
privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in
camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging
the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence. |
| 20-718 |
Reyes-Romero v. U.S. |
Whether, when a district court considers awarding attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing criminal defendant, the Hyde Amendment inquiry into whether “the position of the United
States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith” encompass actions of non-prosecutor government employees underlying the criminal case. |
| 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. |
| 20-554 |
Smith v. McKinney |
Whether a court determining if a prisoner has
suffered an “atypical and significant” hardship must
consider factors such as the duration of and justification for the particular conditions imposed (as several
courts of appeals have held), or whether it can confine its analysis to a comparison of the conditions of
other prison populations (as the court below held,
joining several other courts of appeals). |
| 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. |
| 20-287 |
Johnson v. Precythe |
(1) Whether Bucklew v. Precythe established a categorical rule that a state may obtain dismissal of an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution claim by proffering a reason for rejecting the plaintiff’s opposed alternative method of execution that is legitimate in the abstract, regardless of whether the plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the state’s proffered reason is not legitimate or sufficient on the facts of the case; and (2) whether, in the alternative, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit’s refusal to permit Ernest Johnson, after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bucklew was issued, to amend his complaint to propose a previously-used alternative method of execution warrants summary reversal. |
| 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. |
