Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

On Friday, the Supreme Court released orders from the January 17 conference, granting six cases for a total of three hours of oral argument. The justices are expected to release additional orders from the conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.
On Tuesday at 10:00 a.m., the justices will hear oral argument in Shular v. United States. Click to read our preview from Leah Litman.
On Tuesday at 11:00 a.m., the justices will hear oral argument in GE Energy Power Conversion France v. Outokumpu Stainless USA. Click to read our preview from Ronald Mann.

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)
18-349 Patterson v. Walgreen Co. (1) Whether an accommodation that merely lessens or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between work and religious practice is “reasonable” per se, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th and 11th Circuits hold; does it instead create a jury question, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 10th Circuits hold; or must an accommodation fully eliminate the conflict in order to be “reasonable” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th and 9th Circuits hold; (2) whether speculation about possible future burdens is sufficient to meet the employer’s burden in establishing “undue hardship,” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th and 11th Circuits hold, or must the employer demonstrate an actual burden, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuits hold; and (3) whether the portion of TWA v. Hardison opining that “undue hardship” simply means something more than a “de minimis cost” should be disavowed or overruled. CVSG: 12/9/2019.
18-921 Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano Whether the First Amendment empowers courts to override the chosen legal structure of a religious organization and declare all of its constituent parts a single legal entity subject to joint and several liability. CVSG: 12/6/2019.
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.
19-66 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.
19-123 Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim — namely that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views — as two circuits have held, or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable, as six circuits have held; (2) whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited; and (3) whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs.
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.
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.
19-255 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.
19-296 Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (1) Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, rather than the rule of lenity, takes precedence in the interpretation of statutory language defining an element of various crimes when such language also has administrative applications; (2) whether, if Chevron deference applies and takes priority over the rule of lenity, such deference can be waived in the course of litigation and on appeal; and (3) whether, if Chevron deference applies and cannot be waived, Chevron should be overruled.
19-307 McKeever v. Barr Whether district courts have inherent authority to release grand jury materials in extraordinary circumstances, such as when the case is historically significant and the public interest strongly favors disclosure.
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.
19-333 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.
19-402 Baldwin v. U.S. (1) Whether National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services should be overruled; and (2) whether a federal agency’s statutory construction should receive any deference when it contradicts a court’s precedent and disregards traditional tools of statutory interpretation, such as the common-law presumption canon.
19-411 Reed v. Texas (1) How a court should consider under the Brady materiality standard the impact of a key trial witness's assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination and refusal to testify when confronted with the suppressed exculpatory evidence; (2) when expert testimony relied on by the state in a criminal trial is later shown to be scientifically invalid, what is the appropriate standard to assess whether the state’s use of the testimony violated due process; and (3) whether the conviction or execution of a person who is actually innocent of a crime violates the U. S. Constitution.
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.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
19-706 Facebook Inc. v. Patel (1) Whether a court can find Article III standing based on its conclusion that a statute protects a concrete interest, without determining that the plaintiff suffered a personal, real-world injury from the alleged statutory violation; (2) whether a court can find Article III standing based on a risk that a plaintiff’s personal information could be misused in the future, without concluding that the possibility of misuse is imminent; and (3) whether a court can certify a class without deciding a question of law that is relevant to determining whether common issues predominate under Rule 23.
19-622 Bell v. Pennsylvania Whether a motorist’s assertion of his Fourth Amendment right to refuse consent to a warrantless blood test may be used as evidence of guilt for the offense of driving under the influence.
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.
19-351 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.
19-350 Busch v. Guertin (1) Whether the 14th Amendment’s constitutional right to “bodily integrity” extends to encapsulate a right to be protected by state regulators from a foreseeable risk of harm from exposure to contaminants in public drinking water, or to be free from allegedly false statements by an agency spokesperson; (2) whether, if so, such a bodily-integrity right was clearly established at the time the defendant officials were fulfilling their official duties; and (3) whether mere alleged mistakes and regulatory inaction by state regulators, or allegedly false statements by an agency spokesperson, are sufficiently “conscience shocking” to strip a government official of qualified immunity.
19-205 City of Flint, Michigan v. Guertin (1) Whether the substantive-due-process right to bodily integrity should be extended to protect the public at large from exposure to an environmental toxin resulting from governmental policy decisions; (2) whether it is plausible that a municipal officer’s actions were conscience-shocking when the respondents admit that the policy decisions were based on the advice and direction of the controlling state regulatory agency and with the advice of expert advisors; (3) whether, if the answer to the first or second question is “yes,” the right was clearly established; and (4) whether the city, which was under the substantially complete control and authority of the state under Michigan’s “Local Financial Stability and Choice Act of 2012,” was an arm of the state and thus entitled to immunity from suit under the 11th Amendment.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
19A785 Department of Homeland Security v. New York Whether the Department of Homeland Security may implement a rule that announced a new approach to the determination whether a noncitizen is likely to become a "public charge" and therefore is ineligible to enter the United States while it appeals injunctions that prevent the rule from going into effect nationwide.
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.
19-816 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.
19-815 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.
19-807 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.
19-797 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.
19-794 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.
19-779 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.
19-764 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.
19-755 Steiner v. Utah State Tax Commission Whether Utah’s tax code—which extends a credit for income taxes paid to other states but does not extend a similar credit for income taxes paid to foreign countries or make other adjustments for foreign income, resulting in a double taxation of income that state residents earn from foreign commerce—discriminates against foreign commerce in violation of the dormant commerce clause.
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.
19-743 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.
19-741 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.
19-735 Tong v. Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority (1) Whether a political subdivision of a state has standing to sue its creator state under the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution; and (2) whether the Federal Aviation Act preempts a state law limiting the length of an airport runway, thereby depriving a state from determining the size and nature of a local airport.
19-723 White v. U.S. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause forbids the civil-commitment trial of an incompetent person whose prior conduct is disputed.
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.
19-710 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.
19-697 Pavatt v. Sharp (1) Whether the Supreme Court should summarily reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s clearly erroneous procedural ruling; and (2) whether, if the Supreme Court grants plenary review, a state’s application of an aggravating factor to justify the death penalty violates the Eighth and 14th Amendments—and conflicts with both the Supreme Court’s precedents prohibiting the arbitrary imposition of capital sentences and the decisions of other appellate courts—when it makes punishable by death any homicide where the victim does not die immediately.
19-688 Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami, Florida Whether proximate cause in private litigation about the Fair Housing Act requires more than a “logical bond” between the alleged statutory violation and the plaintiff’s injury.
19-683 Moss v. Atkinson Whether a federal prisoner may proceed through 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s saving clause to seek collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when that prisoner has demonstrated a favorable, retroactive change in the statutory rule that originally established the legality of his or her conviction or sentence.
19-675 Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, Florida Whether, under the Supreme Court’s decisions in this and other proximate-cause cases, the Fair Housing Act’s proximate-cause element requires more than just some “logical bond” between a statutory violation and the claimed injury.
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.
19-648 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.
19-645 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.
19-633 Avery v. U.S. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to federal prisoners seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
19-619 Cisco Systems Inc. v. SRI Int'l Inc. Whether patent claims that recite only the abstract idea of collecting and analyzing data are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International.
19-609 Shepherd v. Studdard (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred in finding that a case involving a shooting-through-doorway tactical scenario squarely governed a situation in which deputies faced a knife-wielding suspect on open ground; (2) whether Deputy Kyle Lane’s lack of knowledge create a triable issue of fact as to whether Edmond Studdard was walking; and (3) whether Deputies Erin Shepherd and Terry Reed's mistaken perception of the distance between themselves and a knife-wielding suspect during a 30-second encounter strip them of qualified immunity.
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.
19-605 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.
19-604 Francway v. Wilkie (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs enjoys a presumption that its medical examiner is competent in every veterans-benefit case; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in expanding the presumption of competency so that the VA and reviewing courts presume, not only that VA medical examiners are competent, but also that they are specialists in the relevant area of medicine.
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.
19-574 Poole v. New York State Citizens’ Coalition for Children Whether the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980’s criteria for partial federal reimbursement unambiguously confer on foster parents a private right of action to compel states to cover the costs of all the eligible expenses for eligible children identified in the CWA.
19-549 Hannah P. v. Maguire Whether an employment decision that is based on conduct caused by a qualified individual’s disability is insulated from scrutiny under the federal disability-discrimination statutes on the ground that the decision is not made on the basis of disability.
19-547 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club Whether Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, by incorporating the deliberative process privilege, protects against compelled disclosure of a federal agency’s draft documents that were prepared as part of a formal interagency consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and that concerned a proposed agency action that was later modified in the consultation process.
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.
19-534 Kadria v. Barr Whether the government may commence removal proceedings by issuing a notice to appear that omits the proceedings' time and place.
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.
19-510 Banegas-Gomez v. Barr Whether the government may commence removal proceedings by issuing a notice to appear that omits the proceedings' time and place.
19-494 Morgan v. Washington Whether a government official who would like to seize someone’s personal property, and has both probable cause and the time to obtain a warrant, must bring his probable cause to a magistrate to obtain a warrant or may, under the plain-view exception, send a fellow officer to take the property.
19-475 Karingithi v. Barr (1) Whether the government may commence removal proceedings by serving a noncitizen with a “notice to appear” that fails to specify the hearing’s time and place; and (2) whether deference under Auer v. Robbins allows an executive agency to interpret a regulation in a way that conflicts with a congressional statute.
19-433 Sutherland v. U.S. (1) Whether, when a defendant makes false statements to a United States Attorney’s Office in an effort to persuade that office to decline prosecution, the objective institutional relationship of that office with the grand jury satisfies the “nexus” required for obstruction or attempted obstruction of a grand jury proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), regardless of whether the defendant subjectively knew, understood or believed the false documents would be given to the grand jury; and (2) whether, when a prosecutor commits misconduct in summation by misstating evidence relevant to an essential element of the offense, but the defendant fails to object, the fact that the district court provided the jury a standard instruction that “arguments are not evidence” necessarily precludes reversal on appeal for plain error based on the prosecutor’s misconduct.
19-423 Malpasso v. Pallozzi Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit typical, law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense in any manner.
19-347 AER Advisors Inc. v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC Whether the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(3)(A), confers (a) absolute immunity for any disclosure or (b) immunity only if the disclosure is an objectively “possible criminal violation,” is made in good faith, or is not fraudulent; and (2) whether in a diversity case, the transferee court, which is receiving jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (i.e., only because of witness convenience), must apply the law of the transferor court (including federal law allowing for an immunity defense), or the law of its own court.
19-284 Mercado-Ramirez v. Barr (1) Whether the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” in the Immigration and Nationality Act is void for vagueness; and (2) whether an agency may apply its new rule retroactively to a noncitizen who pleaded guilty relying on the agency’s previous rule.
19-229 C.D. v. Natick Public School District Whether a school district’s decision to educate a child with disabilities outside the regular classroom violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s mainstreaming mandate.
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.
18-1455 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.
18-1218 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)
19-638 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.
19-453 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.
19-277 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.
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.
Term Snapshot
At a Glance
Awards