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)
21-1599 Polselli v. Internal Revenue Service Whether the exception in I.R.C. § 7609(c)(2)(D)(i) to the notice requirements for an Internal Revenue Service summons on third-party recordkeepers applies only when the delinquent taxpayer owns or has a legal interest in the summonsed records, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held, or whether the exception applies to a summons for anyone’s records whenever the IRS thinks that person’s records might somehow help it collect a delinquent taxpayer’s liability, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th and 7th Circuits have held.
21-1601 Escobar v. Texas Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding that the prosecution’s reliance on admittedly false DNA evidence to secure petitioner’s conviction and death sentence is consistent with the due process clause of the 5th Amendment because there is no reasonable likelihood that the false DNA evidence could have affected the judgment of the jury.
22-49 Lora v. U.S. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii), which provides that “no term of imprisonment imposed … under this subsection shall run concurrently with any other term of imprisonment,” is triggered when a defendant is convicted and sentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 924(j).
22-105 Coinbase v. Bielski Whether a non-frivolous appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration ousts a district court’s jurisdiction to proceed with litigation pending appeal.
22-138 Counterman v. Colorado Whether, to establish that a statement is a "true threat" unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective "reasonable person" would regard the statement as a threat of violence.
22-179 U.S. v. Hansen Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22O156 New York v. New Jersey Whether the Supreme Court should issue declaratory judgment and/or enjoin New Jersey from withdrawing from its Waterfront Commission Compact with New York, which grants the Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor broad regulatory and law-enforcement powers over all operations at the Port of New York and New Jersey.
22-252 Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. DePuy Synthes Sales Whether, under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, federal courts sitting in diversity should apply federal or state law to determine the validity of forum-selection clauses.
22-196 Samia v. U.S. Whether admitting a codefendant’s redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant’s rights under the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment.
22-191 Castaneda-Martinez v. Garland Whether issues resolved sua sponte by the Board of Immigration Appeals are exhausted under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) for purposes of judicial review.
22-187 County of Orange, California v. Craig Whether, under controlling Supreme Court authority, a federal court must apply a state law prohibition on “loss of life” damages in survival claims pursued via 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or whether a state limitation on abstract, speculative damages of this type is inconsistent with the purposes of Section 1983.
22-121 ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC Whether the Copyright Act’s preemption clause allows a business to invoke traditional state-law contract remedies to enforce a promise not to copy and use its content.
22-118 Shaw v. U.S. (1) Whether the jury clauses of Article III and the Sixth Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment bar a court from imposing a more severe criminal sentence on the basis of conduct that a jury necessarily rejected, given its verdicts of acquittal on other counts at the same trial; (2) whether the Supreme Court‘s decision in United States v. Watts should be overruled; and (3) whether, in avoidance of the constitutional question, the rules of issue preclusion, as applied in federal criminal cases, bar imposition of an aggravated sentence on a factual predicate necessarily rejected by the jury at trial in the same case.
22-75 ForwardLine Financial, LLC, v. Ahlmann Whether, in light of Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, the Supreme Court should grant the writ of certiorari, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case for consideration of whether a mutual pre-dispute agreement to arbitrate all claims arising from an employment relationship is enforceable as to an employee’s claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act alleging Labor Code violations.
22-62 Big Horn County Electric Cooperative v. Alden Big Man Whether an Indian tribal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a tribally created claim as an “other means” of regulating a nonmember federally funded and federally regulated electric cooperative tasked with providing electrical service to all customers within its service territory, including tribal members on Indian reservations.
21-1598 City of Anaheim, California v. Valenzuela Whether under Robertson v. Wegmann a federal court must apply a state law prohibition on hedonic damages to a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 survival claim, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has held, or whether a limitation on such damages is inconsistent with the purposes of Section 1983, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 9th Circuits have held.
21-1576 Smith v. U.S. Whether the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue is an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th and 8th Circuits have held, or whether instead the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 9th, 10th and 11th Circuits have held.
21-1538 Cleveland County, North Carolina v. Conner (1) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act allows an employee, who has been paid at least the required minimum wage and overtime pay at a rate that is at least one and one-half times her regular rate, to sue her employer for and recover unpaid straight-time wages earned in weeks when she worked overtime; and (2) whether Skidmore v. Swift & Co. allows courts to independently evaluate an agency’s nonbinding interpretation of a statute.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22A489 Department of Education v. Myra Brown Whether the court should place on hold the order to strike down the Biden administration’s student-debt relief program.
22A486 Fratta v. Texas Whether to stay the execution of Robert Fratta.
22A474 R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company v. Bonta Whether the Tobacco Control Act expressly preempts state and local laws that prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products.
22-5785 Fratta v. Texas (1) Under the ruling in Shinn v. Ramirez, whether state courts are required to accept and rule on the merits of claims presented in writs of habeas corpus by prisoners who lawfully dismiss their attorneys to be incompliance with state procedures and file the claims pro se because the attorneys neglected or refused to do so; (2) whether unindicted actors can be added into an accused's jury charge when his indictment charges him as the only actor to commit the offense; and (3) whether it is constitutional for a grand jury to sign off on an indictment when the elements of the offense sought are not satisfied or could not have been satisfied by the government to begin with.
22-490 Chestnut v. Allen Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) limitations and needlessly overturned a state death sentence on an insubstantial premise that respondent’s mental health evidence was not afforded “meaningful consideration and effect” when the judge stated at sentencing that he had considered all the mental health evidence but did not explicitly reference respondent’s eating disorder.
22-488 Hemphill v. New York Whether the improper admission of the out-of-court statement by the alternative suspect in Hemphill v. New York was “so unimportant and insignificant” as to be harmless under Chapman v. California.
22-484 Pierluisi v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (1) What standard of review governs a district court’s evaluation of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico’s determination that Puerto Rican legislation “would impair or defeat the purposes of” the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act and its review of that legislation for consistency with the fiscal plan; (2) whether this standard of review requires the Board to reasonably and contemporaneously explain its decisions without relying on post-hoc justifications; and (3) whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the Title III Court’s holding that the Board’s determinations regarding Puerto Rican Acts 47, 82, 138, and 176 were not arbitrary and capricious.
22-481 Moore v. U.S. Whether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home and curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search.
22-474 Huffman v. Harris (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in finding that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment imposes an obligation on county sheriffs to release a dangerous schizophrenic inmate whose criminal charges remained pending and whose court proceedings were stalled, and then denying qualified immunity in the absence of clearly established law; and (2) whether the 5th Circuit erred in imposing an obligation on jailers to inquire as to the status of an inmate’s court proceedings without providing any guidance or parameters for compliance.
22-472 Association des Éleveurs de Canards et D’oies du Quebéc v. Bonta (1) Whether a state may avoid express ingredient preemption under the Poultry Products Inspection Act by banning the sale of poultry products based on the only way their primary ingredient can be produced; (2) whether a state law that makes it physically impossible to produce and sell a poultry product in compliance with both state and federal law is preempted under the doctrine of impossibility preemption, or whether a state may avoid preemption under the “stop-selling” rationale this court rejected in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett; and (3) whether a state’s sales ban of wholesome poultry products based exclusively on the farming practice by which the animals were raised in other states and countries violates this court’s dormant commerce clause doctrines.
22-464 U.S. v. Hakim Whether a defendant’s erroneous pretrial self-representation categorically constitutes structural error, thereby requiring automatic vacatur of the convictions, where the defendant had counsel at trial and did not irretrievably lose any rights or defenses in the interim.
22-456 Wilson v. McDonough Whether a complaint that states a claim may be dismissed on the grounds that a plaintiff waived an argument against dismissal by failing to make the argument in opposition to a motion to dismiss.
22-455 Tyson Foods v. Glenn Whether a private actor that assists the federal government in securing the national food supply during a national emergency, under extensive federal supervision and direction, is entitled to removal under the federal-officer removal statute.
22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (1) Whether, under a proper application of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Magnuson-Stevens Act implicitly grants the National Marine Fisheries Service the power to force domestic vessels to pay the salaries of the monitors they must carry; and (2) whether the court should overrule Chevron, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
22-450 Shields v. Kentucky When, if ever, a preliminary hearing provides an “adequate opportunity” for cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
22-448 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.
22-447 Johnson & Johnson v. California (1) Whether a robust fair notice standard applies to California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law given the severe civil penalties at stake, the risk of chilling protected speech, and the criminal penalties involved; and (2) whether Ethicon had fair notice that it faced hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties under these statutes for materials sent to California, but not proven to have reached consumers.
22-438 Glow In One Mini Golf, LLC v. Walz (1) Whether Minnesota’s governor has qualified immunity against petitioners’ Fifth Amendment takings-clause claims for ordering the shut-down of their businesses, but not other like businesses, and prohibiting ingress into those shut-down business properties based on the governor’s declaration of a COVID-19 pandemic emergency; (2) whether the court should overrule Pearson v. Callahan and reinstate the requirement in Saucier v. Katz that lower courts examine whether a government official violated a constitutional right before proceeding to the question of whether the law governing that official’s conduct was “clearly established” at the time of the violation; (3) whether a government official sued in his or her individual capacity may be liable for takings under the Fifth Amendment; and (4) whether petitioners’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause are not moot because Minnesota’s governor voluntarily ceased his shutdown orders, which conduct can later be resumed, after vigorously defending those orders throughout this case.
22-436 Xiaojie He v. Garland (1) Whether courts of appeals review de novo - as a question of law - or for substantial evidence - as a question of fact - a Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that established facts do not rise to the level of persecution; and (2) whether being prohibited by government officials from freely and openly practicing one's religion constitutes persecution as a matter of law.
22-434 Moore v. Texas (1) Whether a law that criminalizes expressive speech is immunized from any First Amendment scrutiny if it also criminalizes non-expressive conduct; and (2) whether a law that punishes the repeated sending of electronic communications with intent and likely result to “harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend” another is unconstitutionally overbroad.
22-431 Jordan v. Lamanna Whether a federal habeas petitioner seeking relief on the basis of a violation of the public trial clause of the Sixth Amendment can demonstrate an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) in the absence of a Supreme Court precedent involving analytically indistinguishable facts.
22-430 Barton v. Texas (1) Whether the criminalization of expressive electronic communications in Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) implicates the First Amendment; and (2) whether Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) is unconstitutionally overbroad.
22-429 Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.
22-425 Carnahan v. Maloney Whether individual members of Congress have Article III standing to sue an executive agency to compel it to disclose information that the members have requested under 5 U.S.C. § 2954.
22-419 Chanu v. U.S. (1) Whether the federal wire-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, criminalizes any “implied misrepresentation” that induces another to enter into a financial transaction, even when the alleged misrepresentation relates to a fact extrinsic to the essential elements of the bargain; and (2) whether the Speedy Trial Act allows a district court to enter a retroactive “ends-of-justice” exclusion of time based on after-the-fact “ends-of-justice” findings to “cure” a Speedy Trial Act violation that already has occurred.
22-418 Deveraux v. Montana Whether a trial court commits structural error, requiring automatic reversal under the Sixth Amendment, when it seats a biased juror after erroneously denying a for-cause challenge to that juror.
22-417 Metzgar v. U.A. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 22 Pension Fund Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974’s anti-cutback rule, 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), prohibits plan trustees and other plan sponsors from eliminating participants’ early retirement benefits through a reinterpretation of the plan to disallow previously permitted postretirement employment, thus accomplishing through a plan interpretation what they could not do through the plan’s formal amendment process.
22-412 Harness v. Watson Whether any amendment to a law originally adopted for an impermissible racially discriminatory purpose, no matter how minor the amendment and no matter the historical context, cleanses the law of its racist origins for 14th Amendment purposes unless the party challenging the law can prove that the amendment itself was motivated by racial discrimination.
22-402 Vorley v. U.S. (1) Whether a “scheme or artifice to defraud” under the wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, encompasses an “implied misrepresentation,” or whether the statute requires an express statement that is either false or misleading; and (2) whether a district court may cure a Speedy Trial Act violation by making an after-the-fact finding that the ends of justice outweigh the interests of the criminal defendant and the public for a speedy trial, or whether the court must make the ends-of-justice finding at the time that it grants the continuance.
22-401 Alaska v. Haaland Whether the federal Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which sought to preserve Alaska’s traditional police powers over wildlife, grants federal agencies plenary authority to preempt state law regulating how people hunt.
22-397 Ferrarini v. Irgit Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s judge-made, laches-like, ownership claim-accrual test applies to bar a copyright infringement suit brought within the three-year look-back period prescribed by Congress in 17 U.S.C. § 507(b).
22-396 Fischer v. Federal Express Corp. Whether a federal court has the authority, absent general personal jurisdiction over the defendant or the defendant’s consent, to maintain a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action that includes opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the defendant outside the state where the court is located.
22-393 NetChoice, LLC v. Moody Whether Florida Senate Bill 7072 in its entirety, and its compelled disclosure provisions in particular, comply with the First Amendment.
22-388 Keister v. Bell (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in relying on the government’s (or its delegee’s) intent to regulate speech in determining that public sidewalks adjacent to government buildings are not traditional public forums, in conflict with decisions by this court and numerous circuits; and (2) whether the status of a public sidewalk as a protected traditional public forum should be determined by the text, history and tradition of the First Amendment rather than by an indeterminate multi-factor balancing test.
22-384 Randel v. Rabun County School District Whether the existence of a state post-deprivation process precludes a procedural due process claim only where a pre-deprivation process that satisfied constitutional standards would be impracticable, such as because the deprivation was a random or unauthorized act of an errant state official, or in any case in which, even though compliance with constitutional standards in a pre-deprivation process was practicable, the state post-deprivation process provides some form of remedy for the constitutional deficiency of the pre-deprivation process.
22-374 Olhausen v. Arriva Medical, LLC Whether a False Claims Act defendant alleged to have “knowingly” violated a provision of federal law can escape liability by articulating, after the fact, an objectively reasonable interpretation of the provision under which its conduct would have been lawful.
22-367 Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Abraham Rosa Whether pre-bankruptcy unsecured claims for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause are uniquely non-dischargeable, unlike every other type of unsecured claim.
22-361 BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1) Whether federal common law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under state law.
22-360 Veteran Warriors v. McDonough (1) Whether courts can defer to the construction of a statute by the Department of Veterans Affairs without first considering whether the statute permits a pro-veteran construction pursuant to the pro-veteran canon; and (2) whether Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council should be clarified or replaced to protect canons of construction, including the pro-veteran canon, from becoming a nullity.
22-356 Daye v. Garland Whether the court should overturn Jordan v. De George and hold that the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” is unconstitutionally vague as it is used in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A).
22-340 Pulsifer v. U.S. Whether a defendant satisfies the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 in order to qualify for the federal drug-sentencing “safety valve” provision so long as he does not have (a) more than four criminal history points, (b) a three-point offense, and (c) a two-point offense, or whether the defendant satisfies the criteria so long as he does not have (a), (b), or (c).
22-336 Reed v. U.S. Whether the Constitution requires an indictment, jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
22-327 Confederación Hípica de Puerto Rico v. Confederación de Jinetes Puertorriqueños Whether the statutory labor exemption from the operation of the antitrust laws in 29 U.S.C. § 113, which exempts “labor dispute[s]” that “concern[] terms or conditions of employment,” encompasses concerted action by independent contractors that does not relate to an employer-employee relationship.
22-324 O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier Whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social-media account, when the official uses the account to feature their job and communicate about job-related matters with the public, but does not do so pursuant to any governmental authority or duty.
22-323 Oakbrook Land Holdings, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Whether the Treasury Department’s failure to respond to comments raising concerns about 26 C.F.R. § 1.170A14(g)(6)(ii) violated the Administrative Procedure Act.
22-321 Slockish v. Department of Transportation Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s mootness ruling warrants summary reversal where the panel clearly misapprehended governing law on mootness and on the authority of federal courts to order equitable relief affecting nonparties.
22-312 Chapman v. Doe (1) Whether Clerk Chapman was properly denied quasi-judicial immunity because the judge could not recall anything about the case, including whether the judge directed her to notify the parents when an unemancipated minor filed an application for a judicial bypass to have an abortion; (2) whether it was clearly established in 2018 that providing prehearing notification to an unemancipated minor’s parent of a judicial bypass procedure violates the minor’s clearly established rights; and (3) whether, in light of this court’s intervening decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., the court should remand to determine whether Doe can show she has a right to a judicial bypass procedure without notice to her parents.
22-293 Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio (1) Whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for arresting an individual based solely on speech parodying the government, so long as no case has previously held the particular speech is protected; and (2) whether the court should reconsider the doctrine of qualified immunity.
22-277 Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (1) Whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring that social-media companies host third-party communications, and from regulating the time, place, and manner in which they do so; and (2) whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring social-media companies to notify and provide an explanation to their users when they censor the user’s speech.
22-274 Donziger v. U.S. (1) Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2) authorizes judicial appointments of inferior executive officers; and (2) if so, whether such appointments violate the appointments clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
22-250 Brach v. Newsom Whether a case is moot under Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement when the governor rescinds the offending policy after it is challenged in court, but the declaration of emergency remains in place and the governor retains the authority to reinstate the policy.
22-242 Irons v. U.S. Whether errors in calculating the Sentencing Guidelines are rendered categorically harmless by the district court’s assertion that the guidelines would make no difference to the choice of sentence.
22-237 Nieveen v. TAX 106 (1) Whether the government violate the Fifth Amendment's takings clause when it confiscates property worth more than the debt owed by the owner; and (2) whether the forfeiture of far more property than needed to satisfy a delinquent tax debt plus interest, penalties, and costs constitutes an excessive fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
22-235 Morrissey v. Mayorkas Whether a discretionary dismissal without prejudice, which nevertheless functions as a dismissal with prejudice because it would end a case forever, is governed by a higher standard than a typical without-prejudice dismissal.
22-234 Texas v. Cook County, Illinois (1) Whether petitioner states were entitled to intervene in defense of the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds rule when they sought to do so within days of the federal government’s rescindment of the rule by acquiescing in a district court’s nationwide vacatur; and (2) whether petitioners are entitled to either relief from the district court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Prodecude 60(b)(6) or equitable vacatur of that judgment.
22-210 Dupree v. Younger Whether to preserve the issue for appellate review a party must reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment.
22-204 Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (1) Whether, under Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Oregon Court of Appeals should have entered judgment for petitioners after finding that respondent had demonstrated anti-religious hostility; (2) whether, under Employment Division v. Smith, strict scrutiny applies to a free exercise claim that implicates other fundamental rights, and if not, whether this court should return to its pre-Smith jurisprudence; and (3) whether compelling an artist to create custom art for a wedding ceremony violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
22-174 Groff v. DeJoy (1) Whether the court should disapprove the more-than-de-minimis-cost test for refusing religious accommodations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stated in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison; and (2) whether an employer may demonstrate “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” under Title VII merely by showing that the requested accommodation burdens the employee’s coworkers rather than the business itself.
22-166 Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota (1) Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause; and (2) whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt, plus interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
22-163 Moses v. U.S. (1) Whether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor v. Wilkie constrain the deference that courts may accord to interpretive or explanatory commentary in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual; and (2) whether deference to the Guidelines commentary is impermissible in any form.
22-160 Fair v. Continental Resources (1) Whether the government violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause when it confiscates property worth more than the debt owed by the owner; and (2) whether the forfeiture of far more property than needed to satisfy a delinquent tax debt, plus interest, penalties, and costs, constitutes an excessive fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment.
22-149 Weisfeld v. Scott Whether, in a suit seeking prospective relief relating to the enforcement of particular provisions of Texas’s election law, Texas’s chief election officer may invoke sovereign immunity solely because local officials carry out those provisions day-to-day, or whether a state official’s authority over enforcement of the entire statutory scheme is sufficient to trigger Ex parte Young’s exception to state sovereign immunity.
22-132 Ruiz v. Massachusetts Whether the Fifth and 14th Amendments forbid judges (or prosecutors) from instructing (or inviting) the jury to take into account a non-testifying criminal defendant’s courtroom demeanor as a basis for finding guilt.
22-124 Kimberlin v. U.S. Whether a petitioner must show he suffers from a “civil disability”—that is, a collateral consequence that causes a substantial and present harm, is specific to the criminal context, and arises solely from the erroneous conviction—before a court can grant a writ of error coram nobis, or whether a court may instead presume that every conviction has collateral consequences that provide adequate standing to seek relief.
22-111 U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway Whether and when a defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the False Claims Act.
22-100 Fairholme Funds v. U.S. (1) Whether, if the United States causes a company to transfer private shareholders’ rights incident to their ownership of shares in the company to the United States for the public benefit, the private shareholders have a direct, personal interest in a cause of action challenging that taking; and (2) whether the rights to future dividends and other distributions held by petitioners are cognizable property rights protected by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
22-99 Barrett v. U.S. Whether the government’s uncompensated appropriation of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s earnings and net worth effects a taking under the Fifth Amendment.
22-98 Cacciapalle v. U.S. (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in barring as “substantively derivative” the claims of private shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the taking of their shareholder rights and the transfer of 100% of their economic interest to the U.S. Treasury, without making a determination as to whether the private shareholders had identified a valid property right that they directly owned and that the government had taken; and (2) whether the rights to future dividends and other distributions held by shareholders are cognizable property rights protected by the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
22-97 Owl Creek Asia I, LP v. U.S. Whether, if the United States causes a company to transfer private shareholders’ rights incident to their ownership of shares in the company to the United States for the public benefit, the private shareholders have a direct, personal interest in a cause of action challenging that taking.
22-70 Tyson Foods v. Buljic Whether a private actor that assists the federal government in securing the national food supply during a national emergency, under extensive federal supervision, is entitled to removal under the federal-officer removal statute.
22-63 Marshal v. Texas (1) Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ application of the equitable doctrine of laches constitutes an independent and adequate state-law ground that bars review of petitioner’s constitutional claims; (2) whether the court's application of laches violated petitioner's right to due process of law; and (3) whether the prosecution is estopped from relying on the doctrine of laches when its misconduct caused the delay in filing the habeas corpus application.
21-1571 Ragan v. Ragan Whether, after an Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan administrator has fully distributed life insurance plan proceeds, ERISA preempts a claimant’s state-law right to those proceeds.
21-1338 NSO Group Technologies Limited v. WhatsApp Inc. Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act entirely displaces common-law immunity for entities, such that private entities that act as agents for foreign governments may never under any circumstances seek common-law immunity in U.S. courts. CVSG: 11/21/2022

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22-37 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC Whether a generic drug manufacturer's FDA-approved label that carves out all of the language the brand manufacturer has identified as covering its patented uses can be held liable on a theory that its label still intentionally encourages infringement of those carved-out uses.
22-22 Tropp v. Travel Sentry Whether claims in patents for dual-access airline luggage locks that recite physical rather than computer-processing steps are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as interpreted in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.
22-18 Cuker Interactive, LLC v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Whether a federal court deciding a state-law issue in a bankruptcy case must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules or federal choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs.
21-1550 Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County (1) Whether federal common law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under state law.
21-1448 Wells v. McCallister Whether a homestead exemption to which a debtor is entitled on the date he files for bankruptcy can vanish if the debtor sells his homestead during the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings and does not reinvest the proceeds in another homestead.
21-1326 U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. Whether and when a defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the False Claims Act.
21-1281 Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy (1) What the appropriate standard is for determining whether a patent claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under step one of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101; (2) whether patent eligibility (at each step of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework) is a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of art at the time of the patent; and (3) whether it is proper to apply 35 U.S.C. § 112 considerations to determine whether a patent claims eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
21-867 Midwest Air Traffic Control Service v. Badilla Whether state-law tort claims that arise out of the uniquely federal sphere of the military’s combat operations are preempted by the interests embodied in the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception.