| 24-813 |
Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana |
(1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States “for or relating to any act under color of such office;" and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract. |
| 24-809 |
Goldey v. Fields |
(1) Whether an implied cause of action exists for Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims; and (2) whether the court should reconsider the premise that the judiciary may imply causes of action for damages under the federal Constitution that Congress did not enact. |
| 24-805 |
Maldonado-Magno v. Bondi |
Whether the U.S. courts of appeals should review de novo or for substantial evidence the agency's determination that a given set of facts do not show “persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected characteristic under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). |
| 24-803 |
Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission |
Whether — and if so,
under what circumstances — the First Amendment
permits the government to require ordinary citizens to
register and pay a fee to communicate with their
government representatives. |
| 24-801 |
Stitt v. Fowler |
Whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires a state to alter its official certificate documenting a person’s sex at birth to represent that person’s current gender identity. |
| 24-796 |
Missouri v. U.S. |
(1) Whether federal courts can second-guess a state’s “reason” for exercising 10th Amendment authority; (2) whether the federal Constitution prohibits states from exercising 10th Amendment authority when motivated
by a concern that a federal statute is unconstitutional; and (3) whether a state official is a proper defendant under Ex parte Young simply because the official is regulated by
a statute, or instead the official also needs to possess authority to enforce the challenged law. |
| 24-795 |
Antonyuk v. James |
(1) Whether the proper historical time period for
ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original
meaning as applied to the states is 1791, rather
than 1868; and (2) whether “the people” must convince
government officials of their “good moral
character” before exercising their Second
Amendment right to bear arms. |
| 24-786 |
Republican National Committee v. Genser |
(1) What legal standard determines
whether a state court’s interpretation of state election
law exceeds the bounds of ordinary judicial review and
therefore violates the elections and electors clauses of the federal Constitution; and (2) whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exceeded
the bounds of ordinary judicial review and thereby
usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to
prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for
congressional elections and broad power to “direct” the “Manner” for
appointing electors for president and vice president under those clauses, when it struck down a state statute directing that election officials “shall
not” count an individual’s provisional ballot if they
“timely received” a mail ballot cast by that person. |
| 24-782 |
Jacobson v. Worth |
Whether Minnesota’s statute limiting permits for public carry of pistols to those 21 and older comports with the principles underlying the Second Amendment. |
| 24-777 |
Urias-Orellana v. Bondi |
Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to
the Board of Immigration Appeals’s judgment that a given set of undisputed
facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe
enough to constitute “persecution” under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(42). |
| 24-773 |
Wade v. University of Michigan |
Whether the Second and 14th Amendments allow a criminal ordinance that prohibits mere possession of firearms on an entire poorly-delineated university campus, except by permission of a single government official with unfettered discretion, which is granted only for “extraordinary circumstances.” |
| 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. |
| 24-755 |
Slaybaugh v. Rutherford County, Tennessee |
Whether a common law
privilege to access property categorically absolves the
government’s duty of just compensation for property
it physically destroys. |
| 24-753 |
Coria v. Bondi |
Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed [specified] criminal offenses” but clarifies that this jurisdiction-stripping provision does not preclude review “of constitutional claims or questions of law,” bars judicial review of collateral facts that do not bear on the merits of a final order of removal itself. |
| 24-728 |
Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta |
(1) Whether a party alleging that California's Proposition 12 — which enacts a pork sales ban to regulate the manner in which pigs are housed in states across the country — discriminates against interstate commerce, both directly and under Pike v. Bruce Church, states a claim; and (2) whether lower federal courts evaluating fractured opinions from this court consider all justices' opinions to determine the majority position on a legal issue, or instead are limited to consider only opinions concurring in the result. |
| 24-724 |
The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist |
(1) Whether a district court’s final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal; and (2) whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a non-diverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim. |
| 24-718 |
Warner v. Hillsborough County School Board |
Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, children must hire an attorney to pursue their claims in federal court, or instead their parents may litigate pro se on their behalf. |
| 24-714 |
T.W. v. New York State Board of Law Examiners |
Whether a plaintiff who suffers ongoing harm caused by a state official’s prior unlawful conduct is subject to an “ongoing violation” of federal law and so able to seek an injunction under Ex parte Young, or that decision's ongoing-violation requirement instead demands that a plaintiff show that the state official’s continuing actions are independently unlawful. |
| 24-699 |
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A. |
Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. |
| 24-686 |
Young v. Swaney |
Whether a certificate of appealability may be granted
under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) when the issue that the petitioner wishes to present on appeal has been resolved
against him by binding circuit precedent but in his favor
by another federal court of appeals. |
| 24-685 |
McBrine v. U.S. |
(1) Whether plaintiffs who bring actions against the United States under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 have the right to trial by jury; and (2) whether parties who have been denied a statutory right to trial by jury may categorically obtain mandamus relief. |
| 24-684 |
Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections |
Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading
review” doctrine requires plaintiffs in election law cases
to predict and articulate specific plans for their own future
electoral participation, or instead it is sufficient to show that the challenged law will
continue to affect voters and candidates in future
elections. |
| 24-683 |
Energetic Tank v. U.S. |
Whether Feres v. United States should be extended to bar claims under statutes other than the Federal Tort Claims Act. |
| 24-678 |
Wheeler v. U.S. |
Whether Congress violated the Fifth Amendment’s
due process clause when it deprived servicemembers
facing criminal prosecutions of the right to be tried by
a panel of fellow servicemembers. |
| 24-670 |
Bowers Development, LLC v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency |
(1) Whether the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment requires something more than minimal rational-basis review when the government takes land from one private owner to give it to a specifically identified private owner outside the context of a comprehensive economic-redevelopment plan; and (2) whether Kelo v. City of New London should be overruled. |
| 24-669 |
Castaneda-Martinez v. Garland |
Whether issues resolved sua sponte by the Board of Immigration Appeals are exhausted under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) for
purposes of judicial review. |
| 24-645 |
Juliana v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, when plaintiffs have established their ongoing injuries are traceable to defendants’ policies and practices, Article III of the Constitution requires a particularized factual determination of whether a federal agency or official will redress plaintiffs’ injuries following a favorable declaratory judgment that resolves the constitutional controversy; and (2) whether exceptions exist to the three demanding conditions for mandamus articulated in Cheney v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia. |
| 24-631 |
Hamso v. M.H. |
(1) Whether a policy declining coverage for sex-reassignment surgeries violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; and (2) whether clearly established law as of July 2022 held that a policy declining coverage for sex-reassignment surgeries violates the equal protection clause. |
| 24-628 |
BNP Paribas SA v. Kashef |
Whether the courts of appeals have discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to grant interlocutory review solely because a district court’s class-certification order is manifestly erroneous. |
| 24-626 |
F.W. Webb Company v. Su |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit's judicially
created “relational analysis” test can be used to decide the administrative exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime rules, in contravention of the secretary of labor’s regulations on the exemption. |
| 24-621 |
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission |
Whether the limits on coordinated party
expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First
Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party
spending in connection with “party coordinated
communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37. |
| 24-594 |
Seale v. U.S. |
Whether the certificate of appealability requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) bars a court of appeals from exercising jurisdiction over a person's appeal from a district court's refusal to conduct a full resentencing after one of their convictions was vacated on constitutional grounds. |
| 24-577 |
Perez v. U.S. |
Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the
warrantless search of a backpack, piece of luggage, or
other bag carried by an individual at the time of his
arrest once police have secured the bag and eliminated
any possibility of reaching a weapon or evidence inside
it. |
| 24-571 |
Young v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, under Honeycutt v. United States, a defendant can be ordered to forfeit property that was intended for and ultimately acquired by her co-conspirator, merely because the property temporarily passed through the defendant’s possession on its way to her co-conspirator; and (2) whether a defendant who is convicted under the Anti-Kickback Statute can be ordered to forfeit proceeds obtained from private health insurers, when such proceeds are not obtained in violation of the statute. |
| 24-557 |
Villarreal v. Texas |
Whether a trial court abridges a defendant’s
Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the
defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess. |
| 24-549 |
Grant v. Zorn |
(1) Whether the False Claims Act’s statutory civil penalty must be limited to a single-digit multiplier of the actual damages under the Eighth Amendment, in a non-intervened qui tam action; and (2) whether the Act's prohibition on presenting “false or fraudulent” claims to the government for payment provides two distinct manners of establishing liability, such that a finding of fraudulent claim submissions obviates a finding of falsity. |
| 24-532 |
Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co. |
(1) Whether, for interpreting the intentions of treaty parties regarding a word like “person,” extra-textual information such as historical context and contemporary domestic law is a material input in parallel with the textual analysis; and
(2) whether the New York Convention applies for arbitration agreements governing a dispute with a sovereign nation arising out of its role as a sovereign. |
| 24-524 |
Lighting Defense Group v. SnapRays |
Whether a defendant subjects itself to personal jurisdiction anywhere a plaintiff operates simply because the defendant knows its out-of-forum conduct “would necessarily affect marketing, sales, and other activities” within the forum, even though the defendant has no contacts with the plaintiff or the forum whatsoever. |
| 24-510 |
Abbey v. U.S. |
Whether petitioners’ negligence claims “aris[e] out of ... misrepresentation,” and thus are barred by Section 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, even though petitioners did not personally rely on an alleged misrepresentation. |
| 24-504 |
Hoskins v. Withers |
(1) Whether qualified immunity shields government
officials from liability even in cases where they retaliate
against a person for exercising a clearly established
constitutional right; and (2) whether, even assuming a plaintiff must show that
retaliatory conduct is clearly unlawful, qualified immunity
should have been denied because the retaliatory conduct
here was clearly unlawful. |
| 24-495 |
Konan v. U.S. Postal Service |
(1) Whether federal employees can be liable under the Ku Klux Klan Act; and (2) whether or under what circumstances the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine — which holds that employees of the same entity cannot be liable for conspiracy — applies to the act. |
| 24-351 |
U.S. Postal Service v. Konan |
Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants
did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees
intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address
arises out of “the loss” or “miscarriage” of letters or
postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act. |
