| 24-57 |
Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois |
Whether the court should overrule Hill v. Colorado. |
| 23-1229 |
Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC |
Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.” |
| 23-1204 |
Kinsinger v. Thomas |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that law enforcement officers’ decision to transport an arrestee they believed had ingested drugs, but did not believe
required emergency medical care, to a nearby prison with
medical staff rather than directly to a hospital constituted
deliberate indifference; and (2) whether the 3rd Circuit erred — warranting summary reversal — in refusing qualified immunity in the absence of any precedent finding a constitutional violation
based on similar facts. |
| 23-1134 |
Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies |
Whether a named plaintiff who initiated a suit from which he was never dismissed or removed, who retains a financial stake in the litigation’s outcome, and who could be precluded from pursuing further redress has standing to appeal. |
| 23-1132 |
Lyft v. California |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law authorizing public officials to pursue claims for individualized monetary relief in court for the benefit of individuals who agreed to resolve those claims in arbitration, thereby circumventing those individuals’ arbitration agreements. |
| 23-1130 |
Uber Technologies v. California |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act allows state officials to litigate claims for monetary relief on behalf of people who agreed to arbitrate those claims. |
| 23-1108 |
Foose v. Thomas |
Whether police officers’ decision to transport a detainee who they suspected had ingested drugs to a nearby prison where he was evaluated by the prison’s medical staff, rather than to a hospital, is an obvious constitutional violation depriving the officers of qualified immunity, despite the lack of controlling precedent proscribing their conduct. |
| 23-1096 |
Davis v. Colorado |
Whether, once counsel has been appointed for an indigent defendant, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant the same right to continued representation by that counsel as is enjoyed by defendants affluent enough to retain counsel. |
| 23-1095 |
Thompson v. U.S. |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false. |
| 23-1094 |
AT&T Services v. Bugielski |
Whether a fiduciary to an employee benefit plan causes the plan to engage in a prohibited transaction under Section 406(a)(1)(C) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by entering a routine, arm’s-length agreement for plan services. |
| 23-1084 |
Hile v. Michigan |
(1) Whether Michigan’s constitutional amendment barring direct and indirect public financial support for parochial and other nonpublic schools violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause; and (2) whether the failure of a ballot proposal that would have authorized school vouchers and partially repealed the constitutional amendment purges the amendment of its religious animus for purpose of the equal protection clause. |
| 23-1072 |
Bahlul v. U.S. |
(1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3) requires recusal when a federal judge is assigned to a case involving the same parties, same facts, and same issues as a case in which they previously appeared as counsel for the government; and (2) whether Section 455(b)(3) provides the exclusive basis for federal judges’ disqualification based upon their previous government service, or whether recusal is still independently warranted under Section 455(a), where a judge’s previous government service gives rise to reasonable questions about their impartiality. |
| 23-1068 |
PacifiCorp v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s disapproval of a state implementation plan may only be challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) if the agency packages that disapproval with disapprovals of other states’ plans and purports to use a consistent method in evaluating the state-specific determinations in those plans. |
| 23-1067 |
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states. |
| 23-1050 |
Sanchez v. U.S. |
Whether a timely filed 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) petition may be amended to cure a pleading deficiency after the 30-day filing period has run, or whether Section 853(n)(2)’s 30-day deadline for filing a petition precludes any amendment after the filing deadline has expired. |
| 23-1007 |
Cunningham v. Cornell University |
Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text. |
| 23-1004 |
Mendoza v. Lumpkin |
(1) Whether a federal claim is “adjudicated on the merits” in state court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) so long as the state court resolves the claim on substantive grounds, even if the petitioner did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in denying habeas relief on petitioner’s claim that his trial lawyers provided ineffective assistance by presenting a psychologist at the capital-sentencing phase who testified that petitioner lacked a moral compass, was a danger in and out of prison, and that the traditional mitigation factors were not present. |
| 23-976 |
Henning v. Snowden |
Whether the court of appeals erred in allowing a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in this case, where the claim arises from an arrest made outside the home, in a place open to the public, pursuant to a warrant. |
| 23-942 |
Campbell v. Kares |
(1) Whether Michigan’s statute allowing a prisoner to request DNA testing calls for a “judicial reexamination” of the defendant’s conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) to statutorily toll the habeas limitations period, or is more akin to a discovery request; and (2) whether Stephen Kares “properly file[d]” his DNA motion under state law, where he did not even attempt to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements set forth in Michigan’s post-conviction DNA testing statute. |
| 23-926 |
No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Housing Production Act v. Chiu |
(1) Whether requiring political advertisers to name their donors’ donors within their advertisements advances any important or compelling state interest; and (2) whether San Francisco’s secondary donor speech mandate violates the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. |
| 23-828 |
Moylan v. Guerrero |
Whether the Supreme Court of Guam’s advisory opinion that a Guam abortion law passed in 1990 had been impliedly repealed constitutes a permissible exercise of the “judicial authority” that Congress has vested in that court under 48 U.S.C. §1424(a)(1). |
