Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

On Monday, the court will release orders from the March 27 conference at 9:30 a.m. There is a possibility of opinions at 10:00 a.m. We will be live-blogging starting at 9:25 a.m. at this link, where you can sign up for an email reminder when the live blog begins.

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)
18-1455 Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (1) Whether the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority’s policy of refusing to accept advertisements that promote or oppose religion or reflect a religious perspective violates the First Amendment; and (2) whether that discrimination against religious speech violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
18-9674 Andrus v. Texas Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. Washington, fails to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and the 14th Amendment right to due process when, in death-penalty cases involving flagrantly deficient performance, courts can deny relief following a truncated “no prejudice” analysis that does not account for the evidence amassed in a habeas proceeding and relies on a trial record shaped by trial counsel’s ineffective representation.
19-311 Cannon v. Seay (1) Whether, in review of a state decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, when a federal appellate court must determine if double-jeopardy protection bars retrial after a mistrial is granted over a defendant’s objection based upon the absence of a critical prosecution witness, the required strict scrutiny applied to the legal determination of manifest necessity constrains in equal or greater measure the deference universally accorded a trial court’s fact-finding; and (2) whether in granting relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit egregiously failed to apply clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Washington and accord deference to the state court’s ruling finding manifest necessity for mistrial when it resolved that omission of a reference to consideration of alternatives in the court’s oral ruling made the ruling fatally insufficient even though the record shows the state court did not act rashly in granting a mistrial, but pursued a cautious approach that included suspending the trial to allow a search for the missing witness prior to considering and granting the state’s mistrial motion.
19-446 VF Jeanswear LP v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1) Whether Title VII authorizes the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to continue investigating a charge of discrimination after the commission issues the charging party a right-to-sue notice and after the charging party pursues private litigation; and (2) whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can rely on a charge of discrimination to demand information from an employer about acts or practices not affecting the charging party.
19-532 U.S. v. California Whether provisions of California law that, with certain limited exceptions, prohibit state law-enforcement officials from providing federal immigration authorities with release dates and other information about individuals subject to federal immigration enforcement, and restrict the transfer of aliens in state custody to federal immigration custody, are preempted by federal law or barred by intergovernmental immunity.
19-546 Brownback v. King Whether a final judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought under Section 1346(b)(1) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, on the ground that a private person would not be liable to the claimant under state tort law for the injuries alleged, bars a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics that is brought by the same claimant, based on the same injuries, and against the same governmental employees whose acts gave rise to the claimant’s FTCA claim.
19-672 The Rams Football Company, LLC v. St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court to refuse to enforce the terms of an arbitration agreement assigning questions of arbitrability to the arbitrator if those terms would be enforceable under ordinary state-law contract principles in a non-arbitration context.
19-718 King v. Brownback Whether a law enforcement officer’s membership in a joint state-federal police task force managed, in part, by a federal agency precludes him or her from acting “under color of state law” for purposes of Section 1983.
19-6062 Valdez v. U.S. (1) Whether a defendant may be required to forfeit substitute property in lieu of the firearms and ammunition subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 924(d); and (2) whether, if the substitute-asset provision of 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) is applied to a forfeiture imposed under any statute via 28 U.S.C. § 2461, the limitations of 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)—which are explicitly incorporated by § 853(p)—must be applied as well; in other words, whether, if substitute-asset forfeiture is imposed via 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), it is limited to situations in which a defendant transfers or conceals her own property.
19-6156 Halprin v. Davis Whether Randy Halprin’s second federal petition raising a judicial bias claim is “second or successive” under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) if the judge concealed his bias by failing to recuse himself, and the public exposure of his bigotry after the conclusion of Halprin’s initial habeas proceedings in the district court created Halprin’s first fair opportunity to present his claim.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
19-941 Raulerson v. Warden Whether the Supreme Court’s unanimous holding in Cooper v. Oklahoma clearly established that Georgia could not impose the burden of requiring proof of intellectual disability beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly when state supreme courts in Indiana, Tennessee and other states recognized that Cooper would not allow their states to require a defendant to prove intellectual disability even by a lower standard of clear and convincing evidence.
19-935 Leeper v. Hamilton County Coal, LLC (1) Whether courts should distinguish between “terminations” and “layoffs” under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by applying an objective standard that examines the employees’ reasonable expectation of recall at the time of the employment cessation, based on the employer’s written and oral communications, policies and practices, industry standards and other factors; and (2) whether “a reduction in hours of work of more than 50 percent during each month of any 6- month period” under the WARN Act includes months in which the employee suffers a 100 percent reduction in hours.
19-816 Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether an abortion clinic may assert third-party standing on behalf of its hypothetical minor patients to challenge a statute requiring parental notice before abortion; and (2) whether Indiana may, consistent with the 14th Amendment, generally require lawyers for unemancipated minors to notify parents of court-authorized abortions, subject to judicial bypass upon a finding that such notice would be against the minor’s best interests.
19-807 Bank Melli v. Bennett (1) Whether the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act requires that the respondent, Michael Bennett, actually own the assets at issue, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held and as the United States has repeatedly urged, or whether the statute instead permits execution even absent ownership, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held below; and (2) whether TRIA permits plaintiffs to execute judgments against a foreign sovereign’s juridically separate instrumentalities, contrary to the presumption of separate status established by the Supreme Court’s precedents and the nation’s treaty obligations.
19-798 Bay Point Properties Inc. v. Mississippi Transportation Commission Whether the “self-executing” just compensation clause abrogates a state’s 11th Amendment immunity, allowing a property owner to sue the state for a taking of property.
19-797 City of St. Louis, Missouri v. Meier (1) Whether a municipality, whose officers issued a “wanted” report supported by probable cause to believe that an automobile was an instrumentality or evidence of a crime, resulting in the seizure of an automobile by officers of another jurisdiction, can be held liable for a violation of the Fourth and 14th Amendments, in an action by the vehicle’s owner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for seizure of the automobile; and (2) whether the “rigorous standards” of causation and culpability governing municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 permit such liability against a municipality to be predicated on the conduct of a non-governmental actor in retaining property seized by police, on the basis of the non-governmental actor’s own policy or custom of enforcing “wanted” bulletins from law enforcement agencies, without any other connection with the municipality against which the Section 1983 action is brought.
19-795 Voorhees v. U.S. Whether the principle that criminal statutes must contain a mens rea element, with the exception of strict liability offenses, applies to criminal prosecutions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, when the underlying statute at issue, 10 U.S.C. § 933, contains no mens rea element and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held below that only a general intent is required using an objective, versus subjective, standard, i.e., negligence, and thus that no mens rea element need be instructed to the jury, even when the “conduct” alleged to be criminal is facially noncriminal.
19-743 Hill v. Whole Woman’s Health Alliance (1) Whether a corporation that has been denied a state license to open a new abortion clinic may assert the 14th Amendment rights of hypothetical future patients as the basis for challenging the licensing requirement and the license denial; and (2) whether a federal court may order a state agency to issue an abortion-clinic license as a remedy for an “as applied” undue-burden challenge to state implementation of its licensing laws.
19-661 Tun-Cos v. Perrotte Whether victims of an unconstitutional search and seizure, who were subjected to a home raid and detention without a warrant or suspicion by law enforcement agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement acting in contravention of both agency policy and clearly established constitutional rights, may bring a civil action against those rogue agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
19-645 Arizona v. Nunez-Diaz (1) Whether the respondent, Hector Sebastion Nunez-Diaz, is categorically barred from establishing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington for a Padilla v. Kentucky / Lee v. United States claim because, as an unauthorized alien, he is without any legal right to remain in the United States; and (2) whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred in finding Strickland prejudice, where inter alia there was no evidence that the respondent had a viable defense either to the criminal charges or deportation.
19-608 Elster v. City of Seattle, Washington (1) Whether a levy that forces property owners to fund other individuals’ campaign donations implicates the First Amendment’s compelled-subsidy doctrine; and (2) whether a compelled subsidy of speech should be examined under rational-basis review, as the decision below concluded, or whether a higher standard of review is appropriate.
19-557 McDonald v. U.S. Whether Congress’ omission of a mens rea for the offense of sexual assault by bodily harm means mere negligence as to the lack of consent suffices.
19-512 Robinson v. Department of Education Whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act authorizes consumers to file civil suits against federal governmental agencies under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and § 1681o.
18-1185 Charter Communications Inc. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media (1) Whether, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s directive that “but-for” causation is the default rule for federal anti-discrimination statutes, the implied cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 enacted in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 imposes a but-for standard of causation or instead incorporates the “motivating factor” standard first created in the late 20th century for Title VII claims; and (2) whether a cable operator has a First Amendment right to include racial considerations among the factors it evaluates in making editorial determinations as to what programming to carry on its limited bandwidth.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
19A960 Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab
19-1156 Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume an applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates a withholding of removal application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination.
19-1155 Barr v. Dai (1) Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume that an asylum applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates an application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination; and (2) whether the court of appeals violated the remand rule as set forth in INS v. Ventura when it determined in the first instance that the respondent, Ming Dai, was eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal.
19-1154 Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips (1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law contract rule that singles out arbitration agreements for invalidation because they were signed by family members or other persons for the benefit of the third-party residents now bringing the claims; (2) whether the FAA preempts a state-law contract rule singling out arbitration agreements by imposing a “mutuality of obligation” requirement to them that is not a requirement for other contracts; and (3) whether the FAA preempts a state-law contract rule that singles out arbitration agreements due to lack of “mutuality of assent” because they were not signed by the party seeking to enforce it, when Arkansas law allows other contracts to be valid and enforceable without a signature based on other factors including actual performance.
19-1153 Suzuki v. Deedy (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in affirming the district court’s exercise of appellate jurisdiction to adjudicate a case brought by a state-court loser complaining of injuries caused by the judgment rendered by the state’s highest court before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting the court to review and reject that judgment; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that the state trial court’s decision not to charge the jury on reckless manslaughter–a lesser-included offense of murder for which the defendant stood trial–constituted an acquittal of that offense.
19-1147 Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (1) Whether liability for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) requires that all steps of a patented process must be practiced by, or at least attributable to, a single entity, a requirement that the Supreme Court previously recognized is a prerequisite for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and (b) in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc.; and (2) whether, by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to grant expedited review and approval of labels for generic pesticides that are “identical or substantially similar” to the previously approved labels for the same product, Congress intended to preclude claims of copyright infringement with respect to generic pesticide labels.
19-1145 Ng v. U.S. (1) Whether the generic term “organization” in 18 U.S.C. § 666 should be construed to include quasi-sovereign public international entities like the United Nations; and (2) whether the official-act requirement under McDonnell v. United States applies to Section 666 and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act prosecutions like this one and, if so, whether it was satisfied here.
19-1143 FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit correctly holds that tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is established whenever an exception under Montana v. United States is met, or whether, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 8th Circuits have held, a court must also determine that the exercise of such jurisdiction stems from the tribe’s inherent authority to set conditions on entry, preserve tribal self-government or control internal relations; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit has construed the Montana exceptions to swallow the general rule that tribes lack jurisdiction over nonmembers.
19-1141 Atlantic Trading USA, LLC v. BP P.L.C. (1) Whether passing Morrison v. National Australia Bank, Ltd.’s domestic-transaction test is sufficient or merely necessary to determine whether a claim seeks a permissibly territorial application of U.S. law; and (2) whether the focus of the Commodity Exchange Act differs from the Securities Exchange Act’s focus on the location of the exchange or transaction at issue.
19-1138 Knight v. Grossman Whether a claim for violation of a prisoner-patient’s 14th Amendment right to informed consent requires a showing of deliberate indifference and proof of refusal or whether the approach adopted by a majority of circuits should control, which applies a balancing test weighing, on one hand, the state’s interests in providing for the basic needs of prisoners and, on the other hand, the prisoner’s right to such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed decision to accept or reject proposed treatment as well as a reasonable explanation of the viable alternative treatments available.
19-1130 Danielson v. Inslee (1) Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a “good-faith defense” to private entities who violate another’s constitutional rights before the courts have clearly established the illegality of their conduct; and (2) whether the defenses of qualified immunity or “good faith” allow a defendant who takes another person’s money or property in violation of the Constitution—but in reliance on a statute or court ruling that purported to authorize its conduct and is only later declared unconstitutional—to keep that money or property when the owner sues for its return.
19-1126 Mooney v. Illinois Education Association (1) Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a “good-faith defense” to private entities who violate another’s constitutional rights before the courts have clearly established the illegality of their conduct; and (2) whether the defenses of qualified immunity or “good faith” allow a defendant who takes another person’s money or property in violation of the Constitution—but in reliance on a statute or court ruling that purported to authorize its conduct and is only later declared unconstitutional—to keep that money or property when the owner sues for its return.
19-1123 Lech v. Jackson Whether there is a categorical exception to the just compensation clause when the government takes property while acting pursuant to its police power.
19-1116 LinkedIn Corp. v. hiQ Labs Inc. Whether a company that deploys anonymous computer “bots” to circumvent technical barriers and harvest millions of individuals’ personal data from computer servers that host public-facing websites—even after the computer servers’ owner has expressly denied permission to access the data—“intentionally accesses a computer without authorization” in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
19-1114 National Collegiate Athletic Association v. New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association (1) Whether a party was “wrongfully enjoined” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) when the district court confirmed via the grant of a permanent injunction that its entry of a temporary restraining order was correct under then-applicable law; and (2) whether a district court retains its full equitable discretion to deny recovery on a Rule 65(c) injunction bond.
19-1108 McKesson v. Doe Whether the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. foreclose a state law negligence action making a leader of a protest demonstration personally liable in damages for injuries inflicted by an unidentified person’s violent act there, when it is undisputed that the leader neither intended, authorized, directed, nor ratified the perpetrator’s act, nor engaged in or incited violence of any kind.
19-1106 Sharp v. Smith (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in concluding that Moore v. Texas I and Moore v. Texas II were mere applications of Atkins v. Virginia that could be applied retroactively on collateral review, contrary to Shoop v. Hill and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit; (2) whether, in sua sponte holding that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals did not rule on the adaptive-functioning prong because its analysis was too cursory, the 10th Circuit violated the Supreme Court's precedent that forbids the imposition of opinion-writing standards, Johnson v. Williams; and (3) whether, reviewed de novo or with deference, the 10th Circuit erred in granting habeas relief on the respondent Roderick Smith’s claim of adaptive-functioning deficits when Smith’s only expert to opine on this prong improperly administered the adaptive-functioning assessment directly to Smith, contemporaneously administered other tests to Smith that showed malingering and relied on information that was disputed by other witnesses.
19-1105 Sharp v. Harris (1) Whether, in holding that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals made an “unreasonable determination of the facts,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit contravened the Supreme Court’s repeated admonition that “state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt,” as in Cullen v. Pinholster and Woodford v. Visciotti; and (2) whether the OCCA was objectively unreasonable in crediting the testimony of three experts who opined that the respondent, Jimmy Dean Harris, was not intellectually disabled and in not crediting the testimony of the one dissenting doctor, who has been censured, used an outdated test, made no assessment of adaptive functioning and disregarded the influence of factors he acknowledged could influence IQ test scores.
19-1104 Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31 Whether there is a “good faith defense” to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that shields a defendant from damages liability for depriving citizens of their constitutional rights if the defendant acted under color of a law before it was held unconstitutional.
19-1099 City of Bakersfield, California v. Crawford Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it held that evidence of prior incidents which indicate that an individual may be mentally ill could be introduced for the purpose of determining whether an officer used excessive force and/or was negligent even though neither the officer nor his department had any prior knowledge of such incidents.
19-1098 National Football League v. Ninth Inning Inc. (1) Whether an agreement among the members of a joint venture on how best to distribute the venture’s jointly created core product may be condemned under the Sherman Act without requiring the plaintiff to establish that defendants harmed competition in a properly defined antitrust market; and (2) whether, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, antitrust damages claims may be brought by indirect purchasers who do not allege that they paid a price fixed by the alleged conspirators.
19-1094 Dailey v. Florida (1) Whether a defendant advancing a claim under Brady v. Maryland must demonstrate that he or she could not have uncovered the suppressed evidence through the exercise of due diligence; (2) whether the materiality of a Brady claim must be determined by considering the probative force of the withheld evidence cumulatively and in the context of the government’s entire case; and (3) whether the Florida Supreme Court’s error in treating petitioner’s claim under Giglio v. United States as though it alleged knowing use of perjury, when it actually alleged withholding exculpatory evidence, warrants reversal.
19-1085 Deasey v. Slater Whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, a merely “sufficiently analogous” case is enough to show that the law is “clearly established,” or whether something more is required, i.e., a “closely analogous” case finding the alleged violation unlawful.
19-1081 Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, California (1) Whether a local ordinance that discriminates against interstate commerce, and was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, must additionally discriminate exclusively against nonresidents to be subject to heightened scrutiny under the dormant commerce clause; and (2) whether a local ordinance that purports to ban advertisements for interstate services made over the internet, and is enforced in that extraterritorial manner, can be saved from dormant commerce clause scrutiny based on an irrebuttable “presumption” that the legislature did not “intend” for the ordinance to apply in the extraterritorial manner in which the ordinance is being enforced.
19-1081 Rosenblatt v. City of Santa Monica, California (1) Whether a local ordinance that discriminates against interstate commerce, and was enacted for a discriminatory purpose, must additionally discriminate exclusively against nonresidents to be subject to heightened scrutiny under the dormant commerce clause; and (2) whether a local ordinance that purports to ban advertisements for interstate services made over the internet, and is enforced in that extraterritorial manner, can be saved from dormant commerce clause scrutiny based on an irrebuttable “presumption” that the legislature did not “intend” for the ordinance to apply in the extraterritorial manner in which the ordinance is being enforced.
19-1080 Archer and White Sales Inc. v. Henry Schein Inc. (1) Whether an arbitration agreement that identifies a set of arbitration rules to apply if there is arbitration clearly and unmistakably delegates to the arbitrator disputes about whether the parties agreed to arbitrate in the first place; and (2) whether an arbitrator or a court decides whether a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement can enforce the arbitration agreement through equitable estoppel.
19-1078 AT&T Mobility LLC v. McArdle Whether California’s public-policy rule conditioning the enforceability of arbitration agreements on acquiescence to public-injunction proceedings is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
19-1069 Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Painters and Allied Trades District Council 82 Health Care Fund (1) Whether the chain of causation between a manufacturer’s allegedly false or misleading statements or omissions and end payments for prescription drugs is too attenuated to satisfy the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act’s proximate cause requirement, given that every prescription-drug payment depends on numerous intervening factors, including a doctor’s independent decision to prescribe; (2) whether everyone who pays for a product with an alleged latent risk or defect necessarily suffers injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, even when the product is fully consumed, provides the bargained-for benefits and causes no ill effects.
19-1066 Comcast Corp. v. Tillage Whether the Supreme Court of California's rule from McGill v. Citibank, N.A. – that provisions in predispute arbitration agreements waiving the parties’ right to seek “public injunctive relief” in any forum are contrary to California public policy and unenforceable – falls outside the Federal Arbitration Act’s saving clause because it is not a ground that “exist[s] at law or in equity” for the “revocation” of any contract; and (2) whether, even if the McGill rule falls within the FAA’s saving clause, it is otherwise preempted by the FAA because it interferes with fundamental attributes of arbitration by negating the parties’ agreement to resolve their dispute bilaterally.
19-1062 CJ CheilJedang Corp. v. Int'l Trade Commission Whether, to avoid prosecution history estoppel under Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., “the rationale underlying the amendment” must be the rationale the patentee provided to the public at the time of the amendment.
19-1061 Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. v. Eli Lilly and Company Whether, under Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.’s “tangential” exception to prosecution-history estoppel, patent owners may recapture subject matter they could have claimed in prosecution but did not, by arguing that they surrendered more than they needed to during prosecution to address a rejection by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
19-1059 Hamm v. Tennessee Whether police violate the Fourth Amendment when they conduct a suspicionless search of a probationer's home.
19-1058 Hospira Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company Whether a patentee may recapture subject matter via the doctrine of equivalents under the “tangential relation” exception by arguing that it surrendered more than it needed to during prosecution to avoid a prior-art rejection, even if a claim could reasonably have been drafted that would literally have encompassed the alleged equivalent.
19-1054 Pike v. Gross (1) Whether a defendant who asserts that trial counsel failed to present key evidence is precluded from showing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington, unless the evidence omitted at trial differs substantially in subject matter from the evidence actually presented; and (2) whether the Eighth and 14th Amendments prohibit condemning to death a defendant who was 18 years old at the time of the offense.
19-1052 Dewberry v. U.S. Whether a guilty plea waives a challenge on appeal to the denial of a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to represent himself.
19-1051 Kansas v. Boettger Whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from criminalizing threats to commit violence communicated in reckless disregard of the risk of placing another in fear.
19-1046 Albence v. Ragbir (1) Whether the respondent, Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir, stated a cognizable constitutional claim regarding the selective enforcement of the immigration laws; and (2) whether the suspension clause guarantees a right to file a habeas petition challenging the revocation of an administrative stay of removal.
19-1039 PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey Whether the Natural Gas Act delegates to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent-domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest.
19-1037 Bun v. U.S. Whether a defendant is “unable to stand trial” within the meaning of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers when he or she has a motion pending before the trial court.
19-1035 Rose v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. Whether 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(A) terminates the automatic bankruptcy stay as to property of the bankruptcy estate.
19-1033 Cantú v. Moody Whether a plaintiff may pursue a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics alleging that a federal officer fabricated evidence.
19-1029 Austin v. Illinois (1) Whether strict First Amendment scrutiny applies to a criminal law that prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of non-obscene nude or sexually oriented visual material; and (2) whether the First Amendment requires a law that prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of non-obscene nude or sexually oriented visual material to impose a requirement of specific intent to harm or harass the individual(s) depicted.
19-1026 Ford Motor Co. v. U.S. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding, contrary to Supreme Court precedent, that a product’s post-importation modification and use can determine its classification under a tariff heading that is not statutorily “controlled by use”; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding, in conflict with the decisions of the other 12 circuits, that an appellee must brief issues not decided by the trial court or raised by the appellant to preserve them for remand.
19-1023 Morgan v. White Whether, if a petitioner defaults an ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim with “some merit,” Martinez v. Ryan allows a federal court to excuse the procedural default without requiring any further showing of prejudice.
19-1022 Matthews v. Barr Whether a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act—that noncitizens may be removed and are ineligible for many forms of discretionary relief if “convicted of … a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment”—encompasses a crime of “child endangerment,” a different child-related offense that criminalizes an individual act—like leaving a child briefly unattended—that creates some risk of potential harm to a child, even if no harm results.
19-1012 General Electric Co. v. United Technologies Corp. Whether competitive harm alone suffices to confer Article III standing to appeal an inter partes review determination, or whether an appellant must also show concrete plans for future activity that creates a substantial risk of a future patent infringement action.
19-1009 Altera Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (1) Whether the Treasury Department’s regulation requiring related companies (such as parents and subsidiaries) to share the cost of stock-based employee compensation is arbitrary and capricious and thus invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; (2) whether, under Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp., the regulation may be upheld on a rationale that the agency never advanced during rulemaking; and (3) whether a procedurally defective regulation may be upheld under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. on the ground that the agency has offered a “permissible” interpretation of the statute in litigation.
19-1006 Facebook Inc. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County Whether a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to subpoena service providers and force them to turn over the contents of their account-holders’ communications, notwithstanding the Stored Communications Act’s express prohibition on such disclosures, and whether a service provider can be held in contempt for refusing to violate the SCA in response to such a subpoena.
19-995 Murray v. Mayo Clinic Whether the “motivating factor” standard is most consistent with the plain language and purposes of the statute, and congressional intent, and therefore the appropriate standard to be applied under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which forbids discrimination “on the basis of” disability, but does not specifically set forth the standard to be applied in determining causation.
19-992 Skipper v. Byrd Whether the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel includes the right to a plea offer that was never made.
19-974 Schmitt v. LaRose Whether the First Amendment and strict scrutiny apply to subject-matter restrictions on ballot initiatives.
19-972 McMillen v. New Caney Independent School District Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires administrative exhaustion when a plaintiff brings a non-IDEA claim seeking relief that is not available under the IDEA.
19-968 Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski Whether a government’s post-filing change of an unconstitutional policy moots nominal-damages claims that vindicate the government’s past, completed violation of a plaintiff’s constitutional right.
19-963 Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. Whether a provision in an arbitration agreement that exempts certain claims from arbitration negates an otherwise clear and unmistakable delegation of questions of arbitrability to an arbitrator.
19-959 TAMKO Building Products Inc. v. Williams Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits state courts to craft state principles of agency law that uniquely disfavor arbitration (in the guise of uniquely protecting jury-trial rights) and use those principles to refuse to enforce arbitration agreements.
19-956 Craig v. O’Kelley (1) Whether a panel decision decided nine days before the relevant conduct in question constitutes clearly established law to deprive government officers of qualified immunity; (2) whether timing constitutes an extraordinary circumstance as articulated by Harlow v. Fitzgerald, such that a police officer may nonetheless be entitled to qualified immunity despite the law's being clearly established nine days earlier; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in holding that a general principle of law announced in Moore v. Pederson firmly established with the requisite degree of particularity that the officers violated clearly established law in the particular circumstances they faced.
19-953 Farrar v. Williams Whether the due process clause is violated when the prosecution relies on material, perjured testimony to secure a conviction but did not know the testimony was perjured until after the trial, as six courts have held, or whether the prosecution’s contemporaneous knowledge of the perjured testimony is required, as eight courts have held.
19-949 Wisconsin Department of Revenue v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. Whether a state violates Subsection (b)(4) of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 by exempting intangible personal property of non-railroads from its personal property tax, but not exempting such property for a limited group of taxpayers that includes railroads.
19-939 Gustus v. U.S. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 111, which criminalizes “assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees” of the federal government, is a specific-intent or general-intent offense.
19-933 Monex Deposit Company v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (1) Whether 7 U.S.C. § 9, the Commodity Exchange Act’s “prohibition against manipulation,” empowers the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to punish conduct that does not manipulate any commodities market, simply because the conduct involves a retail transaction in a commodity; and (2) whether the CFTC violated fundamental principles of due process when it abruptly reversed its 30-year position that the petitioner Monex Deposit Company's business model was not subject to the CFTC’s regulatory authority and retroactively applied its new and incorrect position in this $290 million enforcement action.
19-930 CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Whether the Anti-Injunction Act’s bar on lawsuits for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of taxes also bars challenges to unlawful regulatory mandates issued by administrative agencies that are not taxes.
19-924 Indiana v. Ruiz Whether, when analyzing whether a station-house interview is a custodial interrogation under Miranda v. Arizona, the ordinary security features and layout of a police station weigh in favor of a determination that the interview was “custodial.”
19-917 Joslyn Manufacturing Co. v. Valbruna Slater Steel Corp. Whether the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act's six-year statute of limitations for “remedial” work is triggered, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit held below, only when the construction of a permanent solution for environmental contamination meets a threshold level of comprehensiveness.
19-914 Credit Bureau Center, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission Whether the second proviso of Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, providing that the Federal Trade Commission “may seek” a permanent injunction, is an independent grant of authority to “file suit” seeking implied consumer redress remedies circumventing the elaborate enforcement scheme set by Congress.
19-910 K.G.S. v. Facebook Inc. Whether, under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, virtual contacts can establish specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under the effects-based test of Calder v. Jones, when the relevant online activity is equally accessible nationwide but its content focuses on the forum state and the tortfeasor has knowingly caused the plaintiff to suffer reputational and emotional harm in the forum state, a question left open by the Supreme Court’s decision in Walden v. Fiore.
19-897 Albence v. Chavez Whether the detention of an alien who is subject to a reinstated removal order and who is pursuing withholding or deferral of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1231, or instead by 8 U.S.C. § 1226.
19-896 Albence v. Arteaga-Martinez Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention, to a bond hearing at which the government must prove to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community.
19-893 Waronker v. Hempstead Union Free School District (1) Whether the First Amendment protects speech by a public official that is required by law and that reports and exposes corruption; and (2) whether speech by a public official reporting misconduct to external government officials, outside the chain of command, is protected by the First Amendment, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 9th and 10th Circuits, or whether such speech is unprotected under Garcetti v. Ceballos as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in this case and by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th and District of Columbia Circuits.
19-878 Gentile v. Securities and Exchange Commission Whether the five-year statute of limitations in 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applies to “obey the law” injunctions and penny-stock-industry bars pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1) and (6).
19-875 OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state from invalidating an arbitration agreement as substantively unconscionable on the ground that it provides procedural protections akin to civil litigation, rather than to the streamlined administrative proceeding that would be available under state law in the absence of the agreement.
19-868 Miner v. Picatti Whether a court may decline, in an excessive-force case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to address an argument that, on the facts taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, officials did not violate the plaintiff ’s clearly established constitutional rights, based solely on its determination that genuine disputes of fact exist.
19-867 Wexford Health v. Garrett Whether, if a prisoner fails to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit, Section 1997e(a) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act mandates dismissal of the unexhausted claims, or the prisoner may cure his failure to exhaust by filing an amended complaint after his release from prison.
19-864 Beers v. Barr Whether the government may permanently deny a mentally healthy, responsible and law-abiding citizen of the United States the opportunity to recover his Second Amendment rights solely because of a long-ago involuntary commitment.
19-863 Niz-Chavez v. Barr Whether, to serve notice in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve a specific document that includes all the information identified in Section 1229(a), or whether the government can serve that information over the course of as many documents and as much time as it chooses.
19-859 Force v. Facebook Inc. (1) Whether Section 230(c)(1) of Title 47 of the U.S. Code is a limitation on the definition of a publisher under certain other prohibitions, or a broad grant of immunity to covered publishers; and (2) whether “publisher” in Section 230(c)(1) is limited to the exercise of traditional editorial functions, such as deciding to accept or reject a submission.
19-857 GPI Distributors Inc. v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Whether the due process and equal protection clauses prohibit states from imposing substantial financial burdens on indigent parties seeking judicial review (as at least six states have held), or whether states effectively deprive low-income litigants of access to the judicial system (as at least five states have held)—even when the court access in question represents the party’s first opportunity to obtain meaningful judicial review of an involuntary property taking.
19-849 Dyroff v. Ultimate Software Group Inc. (1) Whether Section 230(c)(1) of Title 47 of the U.S. Code is a limitation on the definition of a publisher under certain other prohibitions, or a broad grant of immunity to covered publishers; and (2) whether “publisher” in Section 230(c)(1) is limited to the exercise of traditional editorial functions, such as deciding to accept or reject a submission.
19-847 Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine 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.
19-841 U.S. House of Representatives v. Texas (1) Whether the individual and state plaintiffs (the respondents here) possess Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 5000A(a) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA); (2) whether Section 5000A, as amended, exceeds Congress’ constitutional authority; and (3) whether, if Section 5000A is invalid, the provision is severable from the remainder of the act.
19-839 Eastern Oregon Mining Association v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Whether the Clean Water Act regulates activities that simply move preexisting material, such as rock, sand and gravel, within a “navigable water.”
19-835 Valero Energy Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency (1) Whether the requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency “shall” make a “calendar year” determination of the “appropriate” point of obligation requires the EPA to consider in each annual rule whether the point of renewable fuel obligation applicable to refineries, blenders, and importers remains appropriate; and (2) whether the EPA can evade the annual duty by partitioning the point of obligation into a one-time collateral proceeding that ignores key evidence, relies primarily on the agency’s own convenience and claims more deference from a reviewing court than an annual rule would receive.
19-831 Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin Whether Lathrop v. Donohue and Keller v. State Bar of California should be overruled and “integrated bar” arrangements like Wisconsin’s invalidated under the First Amendment.
19-827 Guam v. Davis Whether the 15th Amendment permits Guam to invite only “native inhabitants of Guam” to participate in a potential political-status plebiscite that would yield only a nonbinding, symbolic expression of self-determination preferences.
19-825 Federal Trade Commission v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC Whether Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes district courts to enter an injunction that orders the return of unlawfully obtained funds.
19-815 Phoenix v. Regions Bank Whether the regulations issued by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and then by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, permissibly construe the “applicants” protected from discrimination by Equal Credit Opportunity Act to encompass guarantors.
19-814 McCoy v. U.S. Whether officers can presume that a person is “armed and presently dangerous” simply because the person possesses any amount of marijuana, however small.
19-794 Macias v. Nichols (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s qualified-immunity decisions by finding the officers violated a clearly-established right without acknowledging the governing standard, defining the right specifically or identifying a case involving similar facts; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit’s rule that “civil disputes cannot give rise to probable cause” is overly broad, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has suggested, and inconsistent with District of Columbia v. Wesby.
19-793 Institute for Free Speech v. Becerra (1) Whether a state official’s demand for all significant donors to a nonprofit organization, as a precondition to engaging in constitutionally protected speech, constitutes a First Amendment injury; and (2) whether official demands for membership or donor information outside the electoral context should be reviewed under strict or exacting scrutiny.
19-792 Vugo Inc. v. City of New York, New York Whether strict scrutiny review applies in a challenge to government restrictions on commercial speech that do not apply to noncommercial speech.
19-779 Pierre-Paul v. Barr (1) Whether a notice to appear must specify the time and place of a noncitizen’s removal proceedings; (2) whether, assuming that a notice to appear must include the time and place of a noncitizen’s removal proceedings, serving the noncitizen with a subsequent notice of hearing containing the time-and-place information can cure a defective notice to appear that lacked that information; and (3) whether filing a valid notice to appear or other charging document in the immigration court is a prerequisite to that court’s obtaining subject-matter jurisdiction over a noncitizen’s removal proceedings.
19-766 North Carolina v. Courtney Whether the mistrial exception to the double jeopardy bar applies when, after a mistrial, the government voluntarily dismisses a criminal charge.
19-764 Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization (1) Whether the Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority consented to personal jurisdiction when they chose to maintain facilities within the United States after the date specified in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992; and (2) whether the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause bars federal courts from exercising jurisdiction authorized by Congress over a defendant whose criminal conduct harms a U.S. citizen outside of the United States.
19-753 Hunter v. Cole Whether, if the barrel of a gun is not yet pointed directly at an officer, clearly established federal law prohibits police officers from firing to stop a person armed with a firearm from moving a deadly weapon toward an officer if the officer has not both shouted a warning and also waited to determine whether the imminent threat to life has subsided after the warning; and (2) whether a police officer who inaccurately reports his perceptions of events during a dynamic shooting encounter violates clearly established rights under the 14th Amendment.
19-741 Klieman v. Palestinian Authority (1) Whether the Palestinian Authority-Palestinian Liberation Organization has the right to raise a due process defense under the Fifth Amendment—a defense that the Supreme Court has ruled unavailable to U.S. state sovereigns and that many courts have ruled unavailable to foreign sovereigns—while simultaneously asserting its status as a foreign sovereign in a case against the United States at the International Court of Justice, which handicaps Congress’ constitutional powers; (2) whether a court can override Congress’ intent to subject the PA-PLO under the Anti-Terrorism Act to civil litigation in U.S. courts, despite Congress’ constitutional authority to amend the jurisdiction of federal courts and protect Americans from acts of PA-PLO terrorism; and (3) whether the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, which allows criminal prosecution of a terrorist who murders a U.S. citizen, as well any person or entity that supported the crime, would nonetheless bar a lawsuit by the victim’s family to impose civil liability on the same actors under the same U.S. Code section.
19-710 Connecticut Fine Wine and Spirits, LLC v. Seagull Whether Section 1 of the Sherman Act preempts state laws facilitating unsupervised private price-fixing, such as Connecticut's—which requires private beer, wine and liquor wholesalers to “post” their prices in advance so that all competing wholesalers can match them, to “hold” those prices for a month and to refrain from offering quantity discounts to retailers; the wholesalers in this scheme determine not only the case prices paid by retailers, but also the minimum bottle prices paid by consumers.
19-682 Kelsay v. Ernst Whether police officers are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law—even if they use substantial force against nonthreatening suspected misdemeanants who are not fleeing, resisting arrest or posing a safety risk to anyone—so long as no prior case involves a virtually identical fact pattern.
19-679 Corbitt v. Vickers (1) Whether qualified immunity is an affirmative defense (placing the burden on the defendant to raise and prove it) or whether it is a pleading requirement (placing the burden on a plaintiff to plead its absence); (2) whether the Supreme Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.
19-678 U.S., ex rel. Schneider v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Whether the government is entitled to absolute deference regarding its decision to dismiss a False Claims Act action under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A), or whether the qui tam relator should be granted the right to demonstrate that the government’s rationale for dismissal is “fraudulent, illegal, or arbitrary and capricious.”
19-676 Zadeh v. Robinson Whether the Supreme Court should recalibrate or reverse the doctrine of qualified immunity.
19-673 Luna-Garcia v. Barr Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), a noncitizen is entitled to written notice of the time and date of her removal proceedings when she provides a foreign address to the U.S. attorney general as the “address ... at which [she] may be contacted” under Section 1229(a)(1)(F)(i).
19-659 Salgado v. U.S. (1) Under what circumstances a civil forfeiture claimant “substantially prevail[s]” under 28 U.S.C. § 2465(b)(1); and (2) whether, in civil forfeiture lawsuits, when a district court has ordered the United States to return the seized money and the lawsuit will never be refiled, it is an abuse of discretion for the dismissal to be without prejudice.
19-656 Anderson v. City of Minneapolis, Minnesota (1) Whether the burden of persuasion in qualified immunity cases should be, in part or entirely, on the plaintiff as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in this case and by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 10th and 11th Circuits, or whether it should be placed on the defendant, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th and District of Columbia Circuits; (2) whether, under the state-created-danger doctrine, due process is violated when first responders fail to provide any treatment to a person suffering from severe hypothermia, and instead erroneously declare him dead; and (3) whether the 8th Circuit erred in dismissing this state-created-danger case on qualified immunity grounds.
19-605 Arizona v. Martin Whether, when a jury expressly states it is “unable to agree” on a defendant’s guilt for a greater offense and convicts the defendant of a lesser offense, and the defendant successfully appeals his conviction, the hung-jury rule permits retrial of the greater offense or Green v. United States instead bars retrial of that offense.
19-587 White v. U.S. Whether, notwithstanding the plain language of Section 3161(h)(7) of the Speedy Trial Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Zedner v. United States, a district court may exclude time pursuant to a stipulation between the parties without making its own “on-the-record findings” that the ends of justice served by a continuance outweigh the interests of the defendant and the public in a speedy trial.
19-487 Culp v. Raoul Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms requires Illinois to allow qualified non-residents to apply for an Illinois concealed-carry license.
19-333 Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington (1) Whether a state violates a floral designer’s First Amendment rights to free exercise and free speech by forcing her to take part in and create custom floral art celebrating same-sex weddings or by acting based on hostility toward her religious beliefs; and (2) whether the free exercise clause’s prohibition on religious hostility applies to the executive branch.
19-66 Ricks v. Idaho Contractors Board Whether the Supreme Court should revisit its holding in Employment Division v. Smith that the free exercise clause generally requires no religious exemptions from laws that are neutral and generally applicable.
18-1516 Price v. City of Chicago, Illinois Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Hill v. Colorado in light of the Supreme Court’s intervening decisions in Reed v. Town of Gilbert and McCullen v. Coakley.
18-1218 Buchwald Capital Advisors LLC v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Whether the Bankruptcy Code abrogates the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes.
18-1019 Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
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.
19-638 N. B. D. v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services Whether federal law requires state courts of competent jurisdiction to make predicate findings for special immigrant juvenile status determinations upon request.
19-520 Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany Whether the Federal Republic of Germany, a foreign state, is subject to jurisdiction under the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for claims to property that was taken in violation of international law because Germany’s instrumentality (and possessor of the property at issue), Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, is engaged in commercial activity in the United States.
19-453 Cargill v. Doe I (1) Whether the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute is displaced by allegations that a U.S. company generally conducted oversight of its foreign operations at its headquarters and made operational and financial decisions there, even though the conduct alleged to violate international law occurred in – and the plaintiffs suffered their injuries in – a foreign country; and (2) whether a domestic corporation is subject to liability in a private action under the Alien Tort Statute.
19-416 Nestlé USA v. Doe I Whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute may overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity; and (2) whether the judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations.
19-351 Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp (1) Whether the “expropriation exception” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human-rights law when taking property from its own national within its own borders, even though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property; and (2) whether the doctrine of international comity is unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns, even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, and even when the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims.
19-277 HSBC Holdings PLC v. Picard (1) Whether applying Bankruptcy Code Section 550(a)(2) to permit recovery of the proceeds of a foreign transaction that occurred abroad between two foreign parties governed by foreign law constitutes a “domestic” application of Section 550(a)(2) for the purpose of an extraterritoriality analysis; and (2) Whether a bankruptcy court’s and district court’s abstentions from applying U. S. law on grounds of international comity should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, as seven circuits that reached the issue have held, or de novo, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held.
19-255 Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (1) Whether exacting scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies to disclosure requirements that burden nonelectoral, expressive association rights; and (2) whether California’s disclosure requirement violates charities’ and their donors’ freedom of association and speech facially or as applied to the Thomas More Law Center.
19-251 Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra Whether the exacting scrutiny the Supreme Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context – as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson and its progeny – can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.
19-185 Mutond v. Lewis (1) Whether a plaintiff can preclude conduct-based immunity for foreign government officials merely by suing them in their personal capacities; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act abrogates all common-law conduct-based immunity for foreign officials, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held below, or leaves immunity intact, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 9th Circuits have held.
18-1447 Republic of Hungary v. Simon (1) Whether a district court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for reasons of international comity, in a matter in which former Hungarian nationals have sued the nation of Hungary to recover the value of property lost in Hungary during World War II but the plaintiffs made no attempt to exhaust local Hungarian remedies; and (2) in a forum non conveniens analysis, whether a district court is required to defer to the plaintiffs’ choice of a U.S. forum when the case’s sole connection to the United States is that some named plaintiffs (representing a putative worldwide class) became naturalized citizens after the time relevant to the complaint, and is permitted to defer to a foreign sovereign defendant’s comity interest in hosting claims in its own courts, when the plaintiffs allege that the sovereign defendant harmed its own nationals on its own soil and the plaintiffs have not exhausted local remedies.
18-1401 Peterson v. Linear Controls Inc. Whether the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” covered by Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are limited only to hiring, firing, promotions, compensation and leave. CVSG: 3/20/2020.
Term Snapshot
At a Glance
Awards