22O154 |
New Hampshire v. Massachusetts |
Whether Massachusetts' tax rule — which subjects nonresident earned income received
for services performed outside Massachusetts to the state’s income tax — is unconstitutional confiscation. |
20A63 |
Trump v. Vance |
Whether the Supreme Court should stay, pending appeal, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upholding the dismissal of President Donald Trump's claims that a grand-jury subpoena for his financial records – which the justices declined to invalidate in July – is overbroad and was issued in bad faith. |
20A131 |
Johnson v. Rosen |
Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily stay the executions of Corey Johnson and Dustin Higgs in order to consider their claim that their recent diagnosis of COVID-19, and resulting lung damage, will cause them to suffer excessive pain if given a lethal injection, in violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. |
20A130 |
Johnson v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily stay the execution of Corey Johnson in order to consider his claim of intellectual disability, which would make him ineligible for the death penalty under the Federal Death Penalty Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3596(c); and (2) whether the court should temporarily stay the execution to consider whether Johnson is entitled to seek a sentencing reduction under the First Step Act of 2018. |
20A120 |
Gish v. Newsom |
Whether the Supreme Court should temporarily suspend executive orders by California Gov. Gavin Newsom that restrict attendance at houses of worship while allowing some secular business to remain open during the COVID-19 pandemic in light of the court's decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo. |
20-928 |
National Coalition For Men v. Selective Service System |
Whether, in light of the
Department of Defense having lifted the ban on
women in combat, the Supreme Court should overrule Rostker v. Goldberg, which upheld the men-only draft because women at that time were categorically prohibited from serving in combat roles,
and hold that the federal requirement that men but
not women register for the Selective Service, authorized under 50 U.S.C. § 3802(a), violates the right to
equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. |
20-927 |
U.S. v. Higgs |
Whether the Supreme Court should direct a federal district court in Maryland to designate Indiana as the alternate state whose law shall prescribe the manner of executing Dustin Higgs under 18 U.S.C. § 3596(a), and make clear that the execution may proceed as scheduled on Jan. 15, 2021. |
20-921 |
Castillo v. Virginia |
(1) Whether the confrontation clause allows a non-victim
child witness to testify against his father via two-way closed-circuit television when the witness
cannot see his father and does not know that his
father is on trial for murder; and (2) whether, given that Crawford v. Washington removed the underpinnings of Maryland v.
Craig, Craig should be overruled. |
20-911 |
Jackson v. Hudson |
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2255 — which allows a person in federal custody to challenge the legality of his detention by filing a post-conviction motion, as well as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the Section 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention” — is “inadequate or ineffective”
when, at the time of petitioner’s initial Section 2255
motion, circuit precedent foreclosed a potential claim,
but that precedent has since been overruled by the Supreme
Court. |
20-895 |
Seldin v. Estate of Silverman |
(1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act categorically forecloses
courts from vacating an arbitration award on the
ground that the award is contrary to public policy; and (2) whether the FAA’s protection against an
arbitrator’s “evident partiality” is
triggered when there is a reasonable impression of
partiality, or instead by a more heightened standard
such as a showing of actual bias. |
20-886 |
McCoy v. U.S. |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in applying the test from Brunner v. New York State
Higher Education Services Corp., which prohibits discharge unless the
debtor can prove, among other things, a “total incapacity” to repay the debt in the future, instead of the
totality test to determine whether a debtor would suffer an “undue hardship” absent discharge of her student loan debt. |
20-880 |
Holland v. Westmoreland Coal Co. |
(1) Whether the exception to the
Anti-Injunction Act in South Carolina v. Regan — in which the Supreme Court held that the
AIA did not bar South Carolina from filing an original-jurisdiction action in the Supreme Court to raise a 10th
Amendment challenge to an income tax assessed on
private citizens — is available to debtors who want to
avoid paying a tax for reasons unrelated to the tax’s
validity; and (2) whether Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act premiums are “any tax” protected by
the Anti-Injunction Act. |
20-875 |
Kong v. City of Burnsville, Minnesota |
Whether, on interlocutory review of a denial of
qualified immunity, an appellate court may
reject a district court’s determination of a
genuine issue of material fact even if the record
does not blatantly contradict that
determination. |
20-866 |
Allen v. Wells Fargo & Co. |
(1) Whether, under Fifth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer, fiduciaries of an employee stock ownership fund are effectively immune from duty-of-prudence
liability for the failure to publicly disclose inside
information; and (2) whether Dudenhoeffer’s framework extends
beyond prudence-based claims and applies to duty-of-loyalty claims against ESOP fiduciaries. |
20-857 |
Miesen v. Munding |
(1) Whether the plaintiff in a derivative action,
brought under diversity jurisdiction, must plead and
prove the adequacy of its derivative demand letter
as part of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1’s pleading requirements and
whether the court must apply the law of the state of
incorporation to determine the letter’s adequacy; and (2) whether a de-novo or an abuse-of-discretion
standard applies to the review of dismissals of
derivative actions under Rule 23.1. |
20-843 |
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett |
Whether the Second Amendment allows the
government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens
from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. |
20-836 |
Broadway v. U.S. |
(1) Whether courts owe deference to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary when it expands the scope
of the Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) whether the rule of lenity and the right to due process
preclude deference under Stinson v. United States when commentary to a
Sentencing Guideline would increase a sentence. |
20-831 |
Washington v. Domingo-Cornelio |
Whether Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama require an individual proportionality determination before
imposing any sentence on a juvenile offender
convicted in adult court. |
20-830 |
Washington v. Ali |
Whether Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama require an individual proportionality determination before
imposing any sentence on a juvenile offender
convicted in adult court. |
20-828 |
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga |
Whether Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 displaces the state-secrets
privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in
camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging
the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence. |
20-827 |
U.S. v. Abu Zubaydah |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it rejected
the United States’ assertion of the state-secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential
harms to the national security, and required discovery
to proceed further under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a) against former Central Intelligence Agency contractors on
matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities. |
20-826 |
Brown v. Davenport |
Whether a federal habeas court may grant relief based
solely on its conclusion that the test from Brecht v. Abrahamson is
satisfied, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held, or whether
the court must also find that the state court’s application of Chapman v. California was unreasonable under
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 7th,
9th and 10th Circuits have held. |
20-825 |
Brewer v. Hooks |
(1) Whether probable cause or arguable probable
cause exists to seek a search warrant when an
officer relies upon an informant who turns himself in,
admits commission of multiple including unreported/
unsolved crimes, and whose information is partially
corroborated; (2) whether an officer retains qualified immunity
when he takes the additional step of consulting with
and relying upon the advice of an assistant district
attorney that probable cause exists prior to seeking
and securing a search warrant; and (3) whether the subject of a knock-and-announce
search warrant raising a weapon at officers executing
such a warrant breaks the causal connection between
the allegedly flawed search warrant and damage claims,
including the death of a homeowner shot by officers who
warned the subject homeowner to drop his weapon
before firing. |
20-812 |
Folajtar v. Barr |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which permanently
prohibits nearly all felons—even those convicted of
nonviolent crimes—from possessing firearms for self-defense, violates the Second Amendment, as applied
to an individual convicted of willfully making a
materially false statement on her tax returns. |
20-808 |
Miles v. California |
(1) Whether a court reviewing a claim under Batson v. Kentucky may
consider reasons distinguishing stricken jurors from
those accepted by the prosecutor when the prosecutor
did not cite the distinguishing reason in the trial court
as a basis for the strike; and (2) whether, for purposes of comparative juror
analysis, the jurors being compared must have
expressed the same combination of responses in all
material respects for the comparison to have
significant probative value. |
20-805 |
RollinsNelson LTC Corp. v. U.S., ex rel. Winters |
Whether the False
Claims Act requires pleading and proof of an objectively
false statement. |
20-804 |
Houston Community College System v. Wilson |
Whether the First Amendment restricts the authority
of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in
response to a member’s speech. |
20-796 |
City of New York v. Department of Justice |
Whether Congress authorized the Department of Justice to condition funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program — which sets aside funds for state and local criminal justice priorities —
on acceptance of DOJ’s new
requirements that state and local government grant
recipients (1) respond to ad hoc requests from
federal officials for the release dates of non-citizens in
grantees’ custody, (2) provide federal agents with
access to grantees’ jails and police stations in order to
question suspected non-citizens, and (3) certify
compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which purports to
prohibit state and local governments from regulating
when their employees may share information with
federal officials regarding a person’s citizenship or
immigration status. |
20-795 |
New York v. Department of Justice |
Whether Congress authorized the Department of Justice to condition funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program — which sets aside funds for state and local criminal justice priorities —
on acceptance of DOJ’s new
requirements that state and local government grant
recipients (1) respond to ad hoc requests from
federal officials for the release dates of non-citizens in
grantees’ custody, (2) provide federal agents with
access to grantees’ jails and police stations in order to
question suspected non-citizens, and (3) certify
compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which purports to
prohibit state and local governments from regulating
when their employees may share information with
federal officials regarding a person’s citizenship or
immigration status. |
20-794 |
Servotronics Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC |
Whether the discretion granted to district courts
in 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) to render assistance in gathering
evidence for use in “a foreign or international tribunal”
encompasses private commercial arbitral tribunals, as
the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 6th Circuits have held, or excludes such
tribunals without expressing an exclusionary intent, as
the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 5th and, in the case below, the 7th
Circuit, have held. |
20-782 |
Holloway v. Rosen |
Whether a lifetime firearms prohibition based on a
nonviolent misdemeanor conviction violates the Second
Amendment. |
20-768 |
Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection |
Whether, when the government seizes a vehicle for civil forfeiture, due process requires a prompt post-seizure
hearing to test the legality of the seizure and continued
detention of the vehicle pending the final forfeiture
trial. |
20-753 |
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County, Washington |
Whether the United States can change the scope of its re-assumption of Pub. L. 83-280 jurisdiction over crimes involving Indians in Indian
Country years after the re-assumption became effective
under 25 U.S.C. § 1323 without the Yakama Nation’s
prior consent required by 25 U.S.C. § 1326. |
20-748 |
PHI Air Medical, LLC v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co. |
(1) Whether the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempts a state workers’
compensation system that limits the prices an
air-ambulance company can charge and collect for its
air-transport services; and (2) whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act exempts
such a system from ADA preemption. |
20-746 |
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom |
(1) Whether California Governor Gavin Newsom’s lockdown orders and
reopening restrictions under the “Blueprint”
framework, placing strict limitations, including
closures, on all places of worship in California, violates South Bay’s First Amendment right to free
exercise of religion; and (2) whether strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for challenges to state and county restrictions upon
free-exercise-of-religion rights during a pandemic,
or whether Jacobson v. Massachusetts imposes extra
limitations to the Supreme Court’s established line of free-exercise jurisprudence during a pandemic. |
20-733 |
Rickmon v. U.S. |
Whether the sound of gunshots creates an emergency
so that the “individualized suspicion” required by Terry v. Ohio
attaches to anyone near the shots. |
20-727 |
Facebook Inc. v. Davis |
Whether an internet content provider violates the
Wiretap Act when a computer user’s web browser instructs the provider to display content on the webpage
the user visits. |
20-718 |
Reyes-Romero v. U.S. |
Whether, when a district court considers awarding attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing criminal defendant, the Hyde Amendment inquiry into whether “the position of the United
States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith” encompass actions of non-prosecutor government employees underlying the criminal case. |
20-701 |
Calvert v. Texas |
(1) Whether the Constitution prevents a state from
allowing a defendant to represent himself in a capital
case when the defendant is mentally competent to waive
counsel but is not mentally competent to conduct trial
proceedings in his capital trial; (2) whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the
state of Texas from sentencing petitioner James Calvert to death on a
finding of future dangerousness based in substantial
part on graphic testimony and evidence about an attack
on a prison official committed by another inmate in
another prison at another time, having no connection to Calvert; and (3) whether the constitutional violation resulting
from the trial court’s direction to administer a 50,000-
volt electric shock to Calvert during his trial to
“enforce decorum” because Calvert failed to stand
when responding to a question from the court
constitutes structural error. |
20-695 |
Piersing v. Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC |
Whether, in the context of a form
employment agreement, providing that a particular
set of rules will govern arbitration proceedings is,
without more, “clear and unmistakable evidence” of
the parties’ intent to have the arbitrator decide
questions of arbitrability. |
20-690 |
Han v. U.S. |
Whether a court may consider factors other than the parties’
intent in determining whether a transfer of funds constitutes a non-taxable loan under the Internal
Revenue Code. |
20-685 |
Trump v. Sierra Club |
(1) Whether the Sierra Club has a cognizable cause of
action to obtain review of the secretary of defense’s compliance
with 10 U.S.C. § 2808 in reprioritizing appropriated but unobligated funds for the military construction projects involving border
barriers being authorized; and (2) whether the secretary exceeded his statutory authority under Section 2808 in reprioritizing appropriated funds for the military construction projects following the president’s declaration of a national emergency requiring the use of the armed forces at the southern border. |
20-666 |
Barr v. City and County of San Francisco, California |
(1) Whether the Department of Justice has statutory authority
to impose notice and access conditions on grantees
that accept Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant awards, a program that provides millions of dollars in financial
assistance to law enforcement; and (2) whether the department may withhold Byrne
JAG funds from the city and county of San Francisco, California for noncompliance with
8 U.S.C. 1373, which generally bars
state and local governments from restricting the sharing of “information regarding the citizenship or immigration status ... of any individual” with federal immigration authorities. |
20-660 |
Employer Solutions Staffing Group, LLC v. Scalia |
(1) Whether the Supreme Court’s willfulness standard, which
requires a showing that “the employer either knew or
showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its
conduct was prohibited by the statute,” may be
satisfied merely by a showing that a non-compliant
employer was on notice of its general requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act but had no actual knowledge of or reason
to believe that it was not complying with any
requirement of the FLSA; (2) whether the Employer Solutions Staffing Group was liable for overtime
wages when there was no evidence that they knew or
should have known that overtime wages were not
properly being paid by a low-level employee; and (3) whether the Employer Solutions Staffing Group may seek contribution
under the FLSA from other joint-employers for joint and
several liability for an overtime wage award. |
20-659 |
Thompson v. Clark |
(1) Whether the rule that a plaintiff must await favorable termination before bringing a Section 1983 action alleging unreasonable seizure pursuant to legal
process requires the plaintiff to show that the criminal
proceeding against him has “formally ended in a manner not inconsistent with his innocence,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit decided in Laskar v.
Hurd, or that
the proceeding “ended in a manner that affirmatively
indicates his innocence,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit decided in Lanning v. City of Glens
Falls; and (2) whether, when a Section 1983 plaintiff brings a Fourth
Amendment claim for unlawful warrantless entry of
his home and the government pursues a justification
of exigent circumstances, the government has
the burden to prove exigency existed (as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd,
6th, 9th and 10th Circuits have held), or whether the plaintiff has to prove its non-existence (as the
U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th and 8th Circuits have held). |
20-641 |
LSP Transmission Holdings, LLC v. Sieben |
Whether a state law that grants an express
preference to entities with an existing in-state
presence to build facilities serving a distinctly
interstate market discriminates against interstate
commerce, notwithstanding that a few of the preferred
in-state incumbents are headquartered elsewhere. |
20-639 |
Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak |
(1) Whether Nevada Governor Steve Sisolak’s favoring of secular
over religious gatherings — for example, under Directive
021, casinos, restaurants,
indoor amusements parks, bowling alleys, water
parks, pools, arcades and more are subject to a 50-percent
fire-code-capacity limit, but places of worship are limited to no more
than 50 people, whatever their facilities’ size — violates the free exercise
clause; and (2) whether the governor’s favoring of secular
over religious gatherings violates the free speech and
assembly clauses. |
20-637 |
Hemphill v. New York |
Whether, or under
what circumstances, a criminal defendant, whose argumentation or introduction of
evidence at trial “opens the door” to
the admission of responsive evidence that would
otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence, also forfeits his right
to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the
confrontation clause. |
20-634 |
Robinson v. Webster County, Mississippi |
Whether a person injured by a private actor can state
a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against a state or local government actor who created the danger of that injury. |
20-622 |
Amazon.com Inc. v. Rittmann |
Whether the Federal
Arbitration Act’s exemption for classes of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce prevents the
act’s application to local transportation workers who,
as a class, are not engaged to transport goods or passengers across state or national boundaries. |
20-609 |
Gannett Co. v. Quatrone |
Whether a plaintiff adequately pleads breach of the
duties of prudence and diversification solely by alleging that fiduciaries permitted participants in a defined contribution plan to choose, from an adequately
diversified menu of investment options, to invest in
an undiversified single-stock fund. |
20-605 |
Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 |
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. |
20-603 |
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety |
Whether Congress has the
power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states
pursuant to its constitutional war powers. |
20-602 |
Clifford v. Trump |
Whether the Texas Citizens’ Participation
Act applies in federal-court diversity-jurisdiction cases under Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins. |
20-601 |
Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. |
(1) Whether a state attorney general vested with the
power to defend state law should be permitted to
intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the
law; and (2) whether, if so, the Supreme Court should vacate the
judgment below and remand for further consideration
in light of June Medical
Services, L.L.C. v. Russo. |
20-579 |
Tabb v. U.S. |
(1) Whether courts may defer to Sentencing Guidelines commentary without first determining that the underlying guideline is genuinely ambiguous; and (2) whether the U.S. Sentencing Commission can use
commentary to rewrite a guideline that applies to “prohibit[ions]” on the “distribution” of drugs to apply to conspiracies and attempts to distribute drugs. |
20-564 |
Carlisle v. Kentucky |
Whether the Fourth Amendment permits law enforcement to prolong every traffic stop by performing
a criminal history check, or whether the Fourth
Amendment requires a case-by-case approach that
permits such checks when the government offers
some evidence that the measure actually related to
officer safety. |
20-559 |
Doe v. U.S. |
(1) Whether Feres v. United States, which held that the Federal Tort Claims Act broadly precludes claims for injuries
“incident to service,” was wrongly decided and should be
overruled; and (2) whether, alternatively, Feres should be limited so as not to
bar tort claims brought by servicemembers injured by
violations of military regulations, during recreational
activities or while attending a service academy. |
20-546 |
Michigan v. Mathews |
Whether Miranda v.
Arizona is satisfied when a
suspect in custody is advised at the beginning of an
interrogation that they have the right to an attorney,
but is not explicitly advised that they are entitled to
the attorney’s presence before and during
interrogation. |
20-536 |
Episcopal Church v. Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth |
(1) Whether the First Amendment requires courts to
enforce express trusts in church governing documents (as some jurisdictions hold, in line with
Jones v. Wolf's first safeguard), or whether state law may
render such trusts unenforceable (as others hold); (2) whether the First Amendment requires courts to
defer to churches on questions of polity (as some
jurisdictions hold, in line with Jones’ second safeguard), or whether courts may apply state law to
determine the structure of a church (as others hold); and (3) whether the neutral-principles approach may
constitutionally be applied — either prospectively or
retroactively — to resolve church-property disputes. |
20-535 |
Bates v. U.S. |
Whether a district court that chooses to conduct
a resentencing under Section 404 of the First Step Act is
prohibited from considering a defendant’s current,
legally correct Sentencing Guidelines range. |
20-534 |
All Saints’ Episcopal Church (Fort Worth) v. Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth |
Whether the Texas Supreme Court’s decision
awarding the sanctuary and rectory of the petitioner, All Saints’ Episcopal Church (Fort Worth), to a
dissident faction in contravention of the will of
petitioner’s parishioners and an express-trust
provision is consistent with the free exercise and
establishment clauses. |
20-507 |
Mays v. Hines |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s decision — invalidating Anthony Hines' decades-old murder conviction and death sentence on
the ground that a state court unreasonably applied
Strickland v. Washington, when it
concluded that Hines suffered no prejudice from any
deficiencies in his counsel’s performance at the guilt
and penalty phases of his capital trial — conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedents
governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996. |
20-499 |
Hull v. Rockwell |
Whether a debtor may keep a state-law homestead
exemption inside bankruptcy, notwithstanding that the
proceeds would be subject to attachment and execution
outside bankruptcy because the debtor sold the home
and the exemption expired under applicable state law. |
20-489 |
Bess v. U.S. |
(1) Whether 10 U.S.C. § 825, which allows a military commander to hand select members to sit on a general court-martial panel, as applied in Pedro Bess’
case — in which an all-white panel convicted a Black defendant of sexual misconduct against a white woman — violates the Fifth Amendment; and (2) whether the lower court erred in declining to
remand Bess' case for additional factfinding. |
20-481 |
GE Capital Retail Bank v. Belton |
Whether provisions of the Bankruptcy Code
providing for a statutorily enforceable discharge of a
debtor’s debts impliedly repeal the Federal Arbitration
Act. |
20-478 |
CBX Resources, L.L.C. v. ACE American Insurance Co. |
Whether the Supreme Court should abolish the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s
judicially created “finality trap” and resolve the conflict among the U.S. Courts
of Appeals regarding the finality or non-finality under 28 U.S.C. § 1291
of a judgment when a party has dismissed — without prejudice —
remaining unadjudicated claims. |
20-454 |
Azar v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore |
(1) Whether the Department of Health and
Human Services' rule, which prohibits Title X projects
from providing referrals for abortion as a method of
family planning, falls within the agency’s statutory authority; and (2) whether the rule is the product of reasoned decisionmaking. |
20-397 |
Barr v. Portillo Martinez |
Whether the government must provide the written
notice required to trigger the stop-time rule in a single document. |
20-317 |
Chavis v. Delaware |
Whether the confrontation clause permits DNA
evidence obtained as the result of a multi-analyst testing process to be introduced against the defendant at
trial through one of the testing analysts who has no
personal knowledge of the basis for the out-of-court
testimonial statements made by the other nontestifying analysts who participated in the testing. |
20-251 |
Gipson v. Louisiana |
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v.
Louisiana applies to cases on
state collateral review, when the state follows the
retroactivity framework established in Teague v.
Lane. |
20-183 |
Stair v. Jackson |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Graham v. Connor and Plumhoff v. Rickard in denying qualified immunity
to the petitioner, Billy Stair, based upon the absence of a constitutional violation by assessing the reasonableness of each of three Taser activations
over a 19-second period, instead of assessing the reasonableness of Stair’s
conduct in light of the totality of the circumstances; and (2) whether the 8th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s decision in Kisela v. Hughes and
numerous other cases by denying qualified immunity even though two judges concluded
the use of force was reasonable, and notwithstanding the absence of clearly established
law imposing liability under circumstances
closely analogous to those confronting Stair. |
20-120 |
Juarez v. Colorado |
Whether, when there
is no dispute that a guilty plea will trigger mandatory
deportation pursuant to federal law, defense
counsel must advise a noncitizen-defendant that the plea
will result in deportation as a matter of law, or whether it is sufficient for defense counsel to caution that the plea
could make the noncitizen-defendant “deportable” or
that it will “probably” result in deportation. |
20-83 |
Jones v. Kalbaugh |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit improperly focused on the
knowledge and intentions of the suspect, rather than
the facts knowable to the officers, in reversing the district court’s grant of qualified immunity in an excessive
force case; and (2) whether the 10th Circuit analyzed clearly established
law at too high a level of generality by relying on general statements of Fourth Amendment excessive force
principles rather than identifying a case in which officers
acting under similar circumstances were held to have
violated the Fourth Amendment. |
19-1194 |
Kuang v. Department of Defense |
(1) Whether courts can evade their constitutional
and statutory duty to review military decisions under
the so-called “Mindes test,” from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's decision in Mindes v. Seamen, or whether claims seeking
injunctive relief against the military are reviewable
so long as they do not present a nonjusticiable
political question or otherwise fall outside the court’s
subject-matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether a Department of Defense policy that requires all legal
permanent resident enlistees—but not their U.S.-
citizen counterparts—to suffer unjustified delays
before beginning their military careers is judicially
reviewable. |