Breaking News

Petitions We’re Watching

You can see all paid petitions we’re following below, organized by petitions relisted for the next conference, those scheduled for initial consideration at the next conference, other featured petitions, and finally, petitions in which the court has called for the views of the solicitor general.

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22-617 Bystron v. Garland (1) Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) bars review of an asserted question of law where a noncitizen has challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretation of the statutory extreme hardship standard found at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B); and (2) whether the Board's statutory interpretation regarding hardship eligibility falls within the exercise of its inherent discretionary authority, or is a nondiscretionary action that precedes its ability to exercise discretion.
22-734 Gomez-Vargas v. Garland Whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
22-1038 Gonzalez-Rivas v. Garland Whether the conclusion that undisputed facts do not satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard is a reviewable “question of law” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
23-167 Hamm v. Smith (1) Whether Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas mandate that courts deem the standard of “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” for determining intellectual disability in Atkins v. Virginia satisfied when an offender’s lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hall and Moore, or at least clarify that they permit courts to consider multiple IQ scores and the probability that an offender’s IQ does not fall at the bottom of the lowest IQ score’s error range.
23-373 Mckesson v. Doe Whether the First Amendment and this 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, when it is undisputed that the leader neither authorized, directed, nor ratified the perpetrator’s act, nor engaged in or intended violence of any kind.
23-5038 Michaels v. Davis Whether a court reviewing a cold record in a capital case may determine that the effect of an erroneously admitted confession and other improper aggravating evidence was harmless as to the penalty by characterizing the evidence as cumulative without evaluating objective factors showing an effect on the jury deciding the case, including jury communications focusing on the confession, the prosecutor’s statements about the importance of the evidence, and lengthy jury deliberations.
23-5618 Sandoval v. Texas (1) How courts should determine when jury empanelment begins for a particular defendant’s case, triggering the due process right to be present, given that jury selection is one of the most critical phases of a criminal trial; and (2) whether the state court erred when it held, without analysis of the underlying facts, that the trial court did not violate Gustavo Sandoval’s due process rights when it excluded him and his counsel from proceedings in which members of the jury panel who were called for his trial — and who knew the case that they were summoned for — sought discretionary excusals from the court.
23-5682 Compton v. Texas (1) Whether a court’s comparison of generalizations about all the female prospective jurors who were struck by the prosecution with generalizations about the male jurors not struck by the prosecution, rather than a side-by-side analysis of individual jurors, disregards the basic equal protection principle that one discriminatory strike is too many; and (2) whether Texas exercised its peremptory strikes in a prohibited discriminatory fashion.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-734 Rose v. PSA Airlines Whether non-tracing monetary remedies, such as surcharge, are available under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) to plan participants and beneficiaries asserting breach of fiduciary duty claims against plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
23-638 Ravenell v. U.S. Whether, to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) in a prosecution for a non-overt-act conspiracy, the government bears the burden of proving to a jury that the conspiracy existed within the limitations period, or instead bears no burden beyond proving the elements of the non-overt-act conspiracy.
23-625 Boam v. U.S. Whether a defendant produces or possesses a depiction involving the use of a minor engaging in “lascivious exhibition,” and thus “sexually explicit conduct,” under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a), 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, and 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(A), by secretly recording a nude minor showering or engaging in ordinary grooming activities, when the video depicts absolutely no sexual or sexually suggestive conduct of any kind.
23-621 Holcomb v. Stinnie (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988.
23-618 Medina v. Colorado Whether it is consistent with due process for a court to convict a criminal defendant without finding that the defendant is guilty.
23-583 Bouarfa v. Mayorkas Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.
23-541 Donnellon v. Jordan (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s use of the First Amendment analysis of City of Houston, Texas v. Hill negated the objective Fourth Amendment standard of Maryland v. Pringle; and (2) whether it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that initiating a takedown maneuver to effectuate an arrest on a person who did not comply with an order to place his hands behind his back and pulled away was an excessive use of force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
23-500 Gimenez v. Franklin County, Washington Whether the Washington Voting Rights Act is subject to strict scrutiny.
23-488 Sands v. Bradley Whether federal courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 over a petition for habeas corpus alleging that a prisoner’s unconstitutional conditions of incarceration require release, either because habeas jurisdiction generally extends to conditions-of-confinement claims, or because it at least extends to such claims when the prisoner seeks his release from custody.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-776 Israelitt v. Enterprise Services LLC Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act provides for damages (and therefore a trial by jury) in cases alleging that an employer has violated the act’s anti-retaliation provision.
23-743 Consumers’ Research v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether 47 U.S.C. § 254 violates the nondelegation doctrine by imposing no limit on the Federal Communications Commission’s power to raise revenue for the Universal Service Fund; and (2) whether the FCC violated the private nondelegation doctrine by transferring its revenue-raising power to a private company run by industry interest groups.
23-741 Ahmed v. Securities and Exchange Commission Whether the cross-appeal rule, which prohibits the granting of a remedy in favor of an appellee absent the filing of a cross-appeal, is jurisdictional or otherwise mandatory, or instead admits of any exception, including, among other things, for remands or changes in substantive law.
23-722 Diaz v. Polanco Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit improperly denied qualified immunity to prison officials in these cases by defining the relevant law at a high level of generality and failing to identify any precedent recognizing a constitutional violation on similar facts.
23-720 Khadr v. U.S. Whether a plea agreement that includes a general appellate waiver forecloses a direct appeal when a defendant has pled guilty to conduct that was not criminal.
23-715 Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.
23-704 Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals v. Federal Trade Commission (1) Whether a fundamental change in decisional law can independently support relief from a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6); and (2) whether the Federal Trade Commission can obtain compensatory equitable remedies as sanctions for civil contempt of a permanent injunction under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act when those remedies are not directly available under Section 13(b).
23-687 MRP Properties Company, LLC v. U.S. Whether, when analyzing whether an entity is a facility “operator” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, courts should consider pollution-producing activities that the entity managed, directed, or conducted, or should instead limit this analysis to waste-disposal and regulatory-compliance activities.
23-686 Cela v. Garland Whether noncitizens who were “granted asylum,” but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b).
23-677 Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger (1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
23-668 King v. Emmons (1) Whether the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision was based on “an unreasonable determination” of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether the Georgia Supreme Court “unreasonably applied” this court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky under Section 2254(d)(1).
23-664 Benning v. Oliver (1) Whether, where the Supreme Court has required that a prisoner is entitled to procedural safeguards if their “correspondence” is intercepted, respondents are entitled to qualified immunity simply because the correspondence in the Supreme Court case was postal mail, rather than email; and (2) whether the doctrine of qualified immunity should be abolished, pared back, or clarified.
23-649 Price v. Montgomery County, Kentucky (1) Whether absolute immunity is unavailable under 42 U.S.C § 1983 where a prosecutor knowingly destroys exculpatory evidence; and (2) whether absolute immunity is unavailable under Section 1983 where a prosecutor defies a court order that compels specific action, leaving no room for the exercise of discretion.
23-648 Brinker Int'l v. Steinmetz Whether, under the Rules Enabling Act, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and this court’s precedents, a class can be certified by ignoring individualized issues of damages and injury and instead proposing to award every class member the same “average” amount for alleged injuries even if they did not suffer those injuries at all.
23-645 Uber Technologies v. Gregg Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires the complete severance of arbitrable individual claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act from non-individual claims, with the individual claims committed to a separate proceeding.
23-601 John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education (1) Whether, when a public school, by policy, expressly targets parents to deceive them about how the school will treat their minor children, parents have standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief in anticipation of the school applying its policy against them; and (2) whether, assuming the parents have standing, a school policy that requires school employees to hide from parents that their child is transitioning gender at school if, in the child’s or the school’s estimation, the parents will not be “supportive” enough of the transition, violates their fundamental parental rights.
23-578 Kinzy v. U.S. Whether a district court can insulate from vacatur a sentence based on an erroneously enhanced Sentencing Guidelines range simply by stating, without explanation, that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the error, or whether, to avoid resentencing, the district court must comply with this court’s clear command in Gall v. United States and Rita v. United States to sufficiently explain why the sentence imposed is warranted even if the Sentencing Guidelines range was wrong.
23-568 Bartlett v. Baasiri Whether a defendant’s status as an instrumentality of a foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1603(b)(2) “is determined at the time of the filing of the complaint,” as this court held in Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, or at any time “after a suit is filed,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held.
23-492 Jane Doe 1 v. Kentucky ex rel. Coleman, Attorney General (1) Whether, under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 311.372(2), which bans medical treatments “for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of, or to validate a minor’s perception of, the minor’s sex, if that appearance or perception is inconsistent with the minor’s sex,” should be subjected to heightened scrutiny because it burdens parents’ right to direct the medical treatment of their children; (2) whether, under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, § 311.372(2) should be subjected to heightened scrutiny because it classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status; and (3) whether petitioners are likely to show that § 311.372(2) does not satisfy heightened scrutiny.
23-477 U.S. v. Skrmetti Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
23-466 L. W. v. Skrmetti (1) Whether Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, which categorically bans gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adolescents, triggers heightened scrutiny and likely violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause; and (2) whether Senate Bill 1 likely violates the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children guaranteed by the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
23-402 Oklahoma v. U.S. (1) Whether the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 violates the private non-delegation doctrine; and (2) whether the act violates the anti-commandeering doctrine by coercing states into funding a federal regulatory program.
23-365 Medical Marijuana v. Horn Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
23-323 Gamboa v. Lumpkin Whether a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion claiming that habeas counsel’s abandonment prevented the consideration of a petitioner’s claims should always be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby.
23-248 Broadnax v. Texas Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision that James Broadnax failed to establish a prima facie equal protection claim conflicts with this court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky.
23-120 U.S. Soccer Federation v. Relevent Sports, LLC Whether allegations that members of an association agreed to adhere to the association’s rules, without more, are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. CVSG: 3/14/2024

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-217 E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
23-9 AstraZeneca UK, Ltd. v. Atchley (1) Whether the court should grant, vacate, and remand this case for further proceedings in light of its decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh; (2) whether plaintiffs plead proximate causation as required for direct liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act by alleging that defendants transacted with a foreign-government agency that was in turn infiltrated by the group that injured plaintiffs; and (3) whether a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization “plan[s]” or “authorize[s]” a specific attack—as required for ATA aiding-and-abetting liability—by providing general support or inspiration to a different group that carries out the attack.
22-957 Dermody v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Whether an annuity that satisfies the condition in 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)(2)(B)(i) determining the Medicaid eligibility of a married institutionalized person must name the state as the first remainder beneficiary in order to avoid Section 1396p(c)(1)’s transfer penalty.
22-886 Blenheim Capital Holdings Ltd. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. Whether a foreign government’s procurement of goods for a military purpose, through a contract with a U.S. company, is commercial activity within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.