| 24-996 |
Harvey v. Bayhealth Medical Center |
(1) Whether, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employee’s religious
belief is left unprotected if a court determines such a
belief would create a “blanket privilege” because the
belief might apply broadly to other employment
situations, or instead the belief is broadly
protected in the employment setting; and (2) whether lower courts are permitted to make a factual
determination as to whether a professed religious
belief supported by citations to religious materials is
a personal or medical belief as opposed to an avowed
religious belief on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)? |
| 24-994 |
National Basketball Association v. Salazar |
(1) Whether a consumer claiming that he was
harmed by disclosure of his personal information
must plead that his information was revealed to the
public to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, or instead the consumer need only plead that his information was disclosed to any third party without his
consent; and (2) whether the Video Privacy Protection Act bars a business from disclosing information about consumers who do not
subscribe to its audiovisual goods or services. |
| 24-992 |
Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority v. Good |
(1) Whether a state treasury’s liability for an entity’s judgments is the most important factor in determining whether that entity is an arm of the state; and (2) whether incidents of corporate status, such as the capacity to sue and be sued, own property, and contract, are relevant to determining whether a public corporation established by a state for a state-wide public purpose and governed by a board comprising state officials and individuals appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature is an arm of the state. |
| 24-983 |
Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. |
Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation." |
| 24-977 |
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v. Albrecht |
Whether, if a pharmaceutical manufacturer fully informs the Food & Drug Administration of all material information bearing on a drug’s potential risk and seeks approval to warn of that risk on the label, but the FDA formally denies the request without mandating any alternative warning, the manufacturer may nonetheless be held liable under state law for failure to warn of that risk. |
| 24-975 |
Winder v. Gallardo |
Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act applies when law-enforcement officers face exigent circumstances during their encounters with
individuals with disabilities. |
| 24-972 |
Bell v. U.S. |
(1) Whether a misrepresentation that does not concern the price or fundamental characteristics of property
can give rise to a violation of the federal mail-fraud and
wire-fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343; and (2) whether a defendant may be convicted for making
a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by answering a
question posed by a government agent in a way that is ambiguous as to its truth or falsity. |
| 24-969 |
Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau |
Whether, in order to obtain judicial relief, a party
challenging governmental action taken by an
individual who remained in office against the
president’s wishes due to an unconstitutional
removal restriction must show that a hypothetical
replacement officer would have taken a different
action. |
| 24-968 |
Moore v. U.S. |
Whether courts should analyze as-applied Second Amendment challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) by examining whether historical tradition supports permanently disarming someone for the predicate offense(s) underlying the defendant’s conviction. |
| 24-964 |
O’Bannon v. King |
(1) Whether private parties may seek judicial enforcement of the Readmission Acts, statutes that imposed restrictions on former Confederate states as conditions of regaining representation in Congress; and (2) whether plaintiffs may invoke Ex parte Young to bypass a state’s sovereign immunity when they lack a cause of action. |
| 24-959 |
Jordan v. Mississippi |
(1) Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court, in
conflict with this court’s decisions in Ake v. Oklahoma and
McWilliams v. Dunn (but consistent with that court’s prior
decisions refusing to enforce Ake according to its
terms), denied petitioner due process by refusing to
provide expert mental health assistance sufficiently
independent of the prosecution and available to the
defense to assist him in developing and presenting
his sentencing mitigation case, and in rebutting the
state’s case against him; and (2) whether the Mississippi Supreme Court, in
conflict with this court’s decision in Cruz v. Arizona and in disregard of the supremacy of federal law, departed from its longstanding
interpretation of the intervening-law exception to the
state’s bar on successive habeas petitions to deny
petitioner the benefit of this court’s clarification of
Ake in McWilliams. |
| 24-952 |
South Point Energy Center LLC v. Arizona Department of Revenue |
(1) Whether 25 U.S.C. § 5108 expressly preempts
state and local taxation of permanent improvements on
trust land when the improvement’s owner is a non-Indian; and (2) whether federal law impliedly preempts state and
local taxation of petitioner’s permanent improvement. |
| 24-938 |
American Airlines Group Inc. v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, absent evidence of a marketwide price increase or output reduction, a reduction in competition between two members to a joint venture is sufficient to prove a substantial anticompetitive effect at step one of antitrust law's rule of reason; and (2) whether, to meet its burden at step two of the rule of reason, a defendant must disprove other potential causes for the asserted procompetitive benefits and prove that the asserted procompetitive benefits were not offset by out-of-market anticompetitive effects. |
| 24-936 |
Hanson v. District of Columbia |
Whether the Second Amendment allows a categorical ban on arms
that are indisputably common throughout the United
States and overwhelming used for lawful purposes
(generally) and self-defense (specifically). |
| 24-935 |
Flower Foods v. Brock |
Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel
in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the
goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that
cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. |
| 24-933 |
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Jama |
(1) Whether a damages class can be
certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) based on an alleged violation of a statute,
regulation, or contract, even if determining whether
the violation resulted in any real-world harm to each
class member would require highly individualized
proceedings; and (2) whether a Rule 23(b)(3) damages class can be
certified when some members of the proposed class lack
any injury under Article III of the Constitution. |
| 24-920 |
Pardue v. Hines |
(1) Whether professional conduct regulations that incidentally burden speech are subject to heightened First Amendment scrutiny; and (2) whether, assuming heightened scrutiny applies, Texas’s physical-examination requirement satisfies it. |
| 24-910 |
Crawford v. Cain |
(1) Whether petitioner’s appellate counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise a claim under Ake v. Oklahoma on appeal,
where the trial court imposed preconditions on expert
assistance that violated Ake and denied petitioner his
right to expert assistance; and (2) whether petitioner’s trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to continue to pursue expert assistance, to
the extent that, as the court of appeals held, the trial
court’s imposition of the improper preconditions did
not constitute a definitive denial of petitioner’s Ake
request. |
| 24-908 |
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida |
(1) Whether a claim that a local ordinance effected a
regulatory taking upon enactment remains unripe until the landowner asks the local government for permission to develop his property in ways the ordinance plainly prohibits; and (2) whether a regulation that forbids any economically beneficial use causes a taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, regardless of the property’s residual value. |
| 24-906 |
Lexington Insurance Company v. Mueller |
Whether a tribal court can exercise jurisdiction over nonmembers of the tribe based on off-reservation conduct. |
| 24-905 |
Bronitsky v. Saldana |
Whether, under the Bankruptcy Code, debtors can voluntarily contribute to their own retirement accounts rather than pay back unsecured creditors — and if so, when (and in what amount) such contributions might be permissible. |
| 24-872 |
Hamm v. Smith |
(1) Whether, under a proper application of Atkins v. Virginia,
a state can require a claimant to prove an IQ of
70 or less by a preponderance of the evidence; and (2) whether courts evaluating multiple IQ scores
must find that every valid score of “about” 75 or
less supports an Atkins claim. |
| 24-867 |
IQVIA Inc. v. Superior Court of California, Alameda County |
Whether, in a preemptive action brought by a former employee subject to a noncompete agreement who joins a competitor seeking a declaration that the agreement is unenforceable, the due process clause of the 14th amendment, as construed in Walden v. Fiore, permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant when the plaintiff does not reside in the forum state, the noncompete agreement was formed in another state, and the employment relationship was based in another state, on the ground that enforcement of the agreement would prohibit the plaintiff from working for an employer headquartered in the forum state. |
| 24-865 |
Fortin v. King |
Whether the Constitution's appointments clause governs how all officers of the United States are to be appointed even when Congress uses words other than “appoint.” |
| 24-860 |
Carter v. U.S. |
Whether the U.S. Sentencing Commission acted within its expressly delegated authority by permitting district courts to consider, in narrowly cabined circumstances, a nonretroactive change in law in determining whether “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction. |
| 24-856 |
Cisco Systems v. Doe I |
(1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; (2) whether, if ATS aiding-and-abetting claims are cognizable, mere knowledge rather than purpose suffices to show the requisite mens rea; and (3) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting. |
| 24-855 |
Shen Zhen New World I, LLC v. U.S. |
Whether providing a gift to a public official in the hope
or expectation that he will be receptive to a later
request for official action constitutes federal bribery. |
| 24-853 |
Wilson v. Idaho |
Whether a Moscow, Idaho, ordinance prohibiting “any notice, sign, announcement, or other advertising matter” in the public square without the property owner’s permission, or its prosecution of Rory Wilson under the ordinance for posting removable vinyl stickers critical of Moscow’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, violates the First or 14th Amendments. |
| 24-845 |
Zorn v. Grant |
Whether the public disclosure bar of the False Claims Act requires an express allegation of fraud. |
| 24-820 |
Rutherford v. U.S. |
Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). |
| 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. |
| 24-786 |
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. |
| 24-777 |
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). |
| 24-759 |
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. |
| 24-745 |
Montana v. Planned Parenthood of Montana |
Whether a parent’s fundamental right to direct the care and custody of his or her children includes a right to know and participate in decisions concerning their minor child’s medical care, including a minor’s decision to seek an abortion. |
| 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. |
| 24-718 |
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. |
| 24-685 |
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. |
| 24-621 |
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. |
| 24-571 |
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. |
| 24-549 |
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. |
