Breaking News

Petitions We’re Watching

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

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22-942 Tingley v. Ferguson (1) Whether a law that censors conversations between counselors and clients as “unprofessional conduct” violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment; and (2) whether a law that primarily burdens religious speech is neutral and generally applicable, and if so, whether the court should overrule Employment Division v. Smith.
22-982 Thornell v. Jones Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court’s precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court’s factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state’s rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief.
22-1130 74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York (1) Whether a law that prohibits owners from terminating a tenancy at the end of a fixed lease term, except on grounds outside the owner’s control, constitutes a physical taking; and (2) whether allegations that such a law conscripts private property for use as public housing stock, and thereby substantially reduces its value, state a regulatory takings claim.
22-1170 335-7 LLC v. City of New York, New York (1) Whether New York’s Rent-Stabilization Laws and accompanying regulations effect a per se physical taking by expropriating petitioners’ right to exclude; (2) whether the laws effect a confiscatory taking by depriving petitioners of a just and reasonable return; and (3) whether the laws effect a regulatory taking as an unconstitutional use restriction of petitioners’ property.
22-1222 Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (1) Whether the definition of "machinegun" in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) includes non-mechanical bump stocks; and (2) if the definition of "machinegun" in Section 5845(b) is ambiguous, whether that ambiguity should be construed against the government.
22-1225 Payne v. Biden (1) Whether the judgment below should be vacated and the case remanded for dismissal as moot under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc; and (2) alternatively, whether the judgment below should be vacated and the case remanded for further consideration in light of Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commission.
22-6500 Glossip v. Oklahoma (1) Whether a court may require a defendant to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have returned a guilty verdict to obtain relief for a violation of Brady v. Maryland; and (2) whether suppressed impeachment evidence of the state’s key witness is per se non-material under Brady because that witness’ credibility had been otherwise impeached at trial.
22-7466 Glossip v. Oklahoma (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; and (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it.
23-21 Harrow v. Department of Defense Whether the 60-day deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional.
23-60 Biden v. Feds for Medical Freedom Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., this court should vacate the court of appeals’ judgment and remand with instructions to direct the district court to vacate its order granting a preliminary injunction as moot.
23-154 Kendall v. Doster Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., this court should vacate the court of appeals’ judgment and remand with instructions to direct the district court to vacate its orders granting preliminary injunctions as moot.
23-156 Speech First v. Sands Whether university bias-response teams — official entities that solicit, track, and investigate reports of bias; ask to meet with perpetrators; and threaten to refer students for formal discipline — objectively chill students’ speech in violation of the First Amendment.
23-374 Garland v. Range Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), the federal statute that prohibits a person from possessing a firearm if he has been convicted of “a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year," complies with the Second Amendment.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-217 E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.
23-195 Hashim v. Cohen (1) Whether the state controller’s actions under color of the California Unclaimed Property Law violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment because they deprive owners of their property without affording constitutionally adequate notice; and (2) whether the controller’s actions under color of the law violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment because they take private property without just compensation.
23-186 Nevada Department of Corrections v. Galanti Whether there is an exception to the favorable-termination rule in Heck v. Humphrey for plaintiffs who are no longer in custody.
23-179 Alaska v. Alaska State Employees Association Whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from taking money from employees’ paychecks to subsidize union speech when the state lacks sufficient evidence that the employees knowingly and voluntarily waived their First Amendment rights.
23-170 Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board Whether the Fairfax County School Board violated the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause when it overhauled the admissions criteria at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.
23-168 American Petroleum Institute v. Minnesota Whether a federal district court has removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 28 U.S.C. 1441 over putative state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.
23-167 Hamm v. Smith (1) Whether Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas mandate that courts deem the standard of “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” for determining intellectual disability in Atkins v. Virginia satisfied when an offender’s lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hall and Moore, or at least clarify that they permit courts to consider multiple IQ scores and the probability that an offender’s IQ does not fall at the bottom of the lowest IQ score’s error range.
23-146 Connelly v. Internal Revenue Service Whether the proceeds of a life-insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder’s stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares for purposes of the federal estate tax.
23-107 Clements v. Florida Whether a person is “in custody” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 if that person remains subject for the rest of his life to a state-law sex-offender registration scheme that, among other things, compels his frequent physical appearances for in-person reporting at particular times and places and limits the circumstances under which he may travel, all under threat of criminal sanction.
23-94 Miller v. U.S. (1) Whether the obstruction-of-justice offenses in 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) cover only acts that affect the integrity or availability of evidence, or whether they criminalize advocacy, lobbying, and protest in connection with congressional proceedings that are neither inquiries nor investigations, such as Congress’ joint session to certify the Electoral College vote count; and (2) whether Section 1512(c)’s “corruptly” element requires proof that the defendant acted with the intent to obtain an unlawful benefit, or whether it merely requires proof that the defendant acted with an improper or wrongful purpose or through unlawful means.
23-74 Vitagliano v. County of Westchester, New York Whether the court should overrule Hill v. Colorado, which upheld a law that banned approaching within eight feet of another person in public fora outside abortion clinics “for the purpose of … engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling” unless that person consents.
23-50 Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio Whether Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, under which a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause, or by the “any-crime” rule, under which probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause.
22-669 NexPoint Advisors, L.P. v. Highland Capital Management, L.P. (1) Whether a bankruptcy court may exculpate third-party misconduct that falls short of gross negligence, on the theory that bankruptcy trustees have common-law immunity for such misconduct; and (2) whether a bankruptcy court may exculpate parties from ordinary post-bankruptcy business liabilities. CVSG: 10/19/2023
22-631 Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. NexPoint Advisors, L.P. Whether Section 524(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, as its text suggests, states only the effect of a discharge on third parties’ liability for a debtor’s own debts or instead constrains the power of a court when confirming a plan of reorganization. CVSG: 10/19/2023
22-601 Lake v. NextEra Energy Capital Holdings Whether, consistent with the commerce clause, states may exercise their core police power to regulate public utilities by recognizing a preference for allowing incumbent utility companies to build new transmission lines. CVSG: 10/23/2023

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-334 U.S. v. Muñoz (1) Whether a consular officer's refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen's noncitizen spouse impinges upon a constitutionally protected interest of the citizen; (2) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists, notifying a visa applicant that he was deemed inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) suffices to provide any process that is due; and (3) whether, assuming that such a constitutional interest exists and that citing Section 1182(a)(3)(A)(ii) is insufficient standing alone, due process requires the government to provide a further factual basis for the visa denial “within a reasonable time,” or else forfeit the ability to invoke consular nonreviewability in court.
23-327 Canada v. U.S. Whether the review of the evidence in a suppression-hearing record “in the light most favorable to the government” conflicts with the standard of review articulated in Ornelas v. United States and impermissibly places a thumb on the scales in favor of the prosecution in resolving Fourth Amendment claims.
23-325 South Carolina State Ports Authority v. National Labor Relations Board (1) Whether a union’s unlawful secondary boycott is shielded by the work-preservation defense because the targeted secondary employer could choose to take its business elsewhere and, in that way, can “control” the primary employer’s work assignments; and (2) whether a union’s unlawful secondary boycott is shielded by the work-preservation defense even when no bargaining unit jobs are threatened.
23-324 Ferreyra v. Hicks (1) Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents for Fourth Amendment claims against federal officers operating under a different legal mandate than the narcotics officers in Bivens; and (2) whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for Fourth Amendment claims not involving a search or arrest inside a home.
23-323 Gamboa v. Lumpkin Whether a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion claiming that habeas counsel’s abandonment prevented the consideration of a petitioner’s claims should always be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby.
23-317 Crandel v. Hall Whether the objective-reasonableness test of Kingsley v. Hendrickson applies to pretrial detainees’ claims about their treatment while in custody, including failure to protect from the risk of suicide.
23-310 Ratzloff v. U.S. Whether the administrative law principles articulated in Kisor v. Wilkie limit the deference owed to the United States Sentencing Commission’s commentary on the sentencing guidelines.
23-308 Steelman v. Ernest Bock LLC Whether a stay of federal proceedings under Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States is permissible only when a pending state court case will necessarily resolve the federal proceedings however it is decided, or whether a stay is permissible when one of the potential outcomes in state court can completely resolve the case, even if a second potential outcome would leave further issues for federal litigation.
23-291 Little v. Doguet Whether Younger v. Harris and its progeny require federal courts to abstain from adjudicating petitioner’s constitutional challenges to respondents’ pretrial detention of many thousands of presumptively innocent people.
23-270 County of Tulare, California v. Murguia Whether, and under what circumstances, a state’s failure to protect an individual who is not in state custody from violence by a private person constitutes a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
23-267 Williams v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Whether an interlocutory ruling that dismisses some (but not all) of a plaintiff’s claims with prejudice become an appealable “final decision” if the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses her action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
23-259 Lewis County, Kentucky v. Helphenstine Whether a pretrial detainee alleging deliberate indifference must prove the defendant actually knew of a significant risk of harm, or instead must prove only that the defendant objectively should have known of such a risk.
23-251 Barco v. Witte Whether a habeas action brought to challenge civil immigration detention qualifies as “any civil action” within the meaning of the Equal Access to Justice Act.
23-248 Broadnax v. Texas Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision that James Broadnax failed to establish a prima facie equal protection claim conflicts with this court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky.
23-236 Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (1) Whether an association can demonstrate Article III standing to enjoin a government action by arguing that some unspecified member may be injured at some future time by the challenged action; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in upholding the preliminary injunction of the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 actions with respect to mifepristone’s approved conditions of use based on the court’s review of an incomplete administrative record.
23-235 Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (1) Whether respondents have Article III standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 actions with respect to mifepristone’s approved conditions of use; (2) whether the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 actions were arbitrary and capricious; and (3) whether the district court properly granted preliminary relief.
23-232 BASF Metals Limited v. KPFF Investment Whether due process permits a court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a defendant based on the forum contacts of an alleged co-conspirator, even when the defendant did not direct, control, or supervise the activities of that alleged co-conspirator.
23-227 Molina v. Book (1) Whether words printed on clothing are pure speech, and thus presumptively entitled to First Amendment protection, or whether they are protected only if they convey a “particularized message;” (2) whether, in light of important new historical evidence, this court should reconsider the doctrine of qualified immunity; and (3) whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a First Amendment right to unobtrusively observe and record police performing their duties in public is not clearly established.
23-226 Gonzalez v. U.S. Whether a district court must recalculate a movant’s sentencing range as if Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 were in effect at the time of the offense before exercising its discretion to reduce the movant’s sentence for a covered offense under the First Step Act of 2018.
23-219 Moore v. U.S. Whether, for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e), a state offense relates to the “sexual exploitation of children” only when it relates to child pornography or when it relates to any criminal sexual activity involving children.
23-207 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.
23-194 Trendily Furniture, LLC v. Jason Scott Collection Whether, and to what extent, a competitor’s intentional copying alone — without any intent to confuse consumers or pass off its products as plaintiff’s — establishes that plaintiff’s trade dress has secondary meaning.
23-194 Trendily Furniture, LLC v. Jason Scott Collection Whether, and to what extent, a competitor’s intentional copying alone — without any intent to confuse consumers or pass off its products as plaintiff’s — establishes that plaintiff’s trade dress has secondary meaning.
23-191 Williams v. Washington Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.
23-183 Eastern Pacific Shipping PTE, Limited v. Ganpat Whether a federal court may properly issue an injunction requiring the termination of litigation in a foreign court based solely on a conclusion that the foreign litigation will cause hardship to the movant and will frustrate related United States litigation.
23-175 City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson Whether the enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
23-171 Quinn v. Washington Whether the Constitution permits a state to tax out-of-state transactions involving only out-of-state property.
23-138 Simpson v. Thurston (1) Whether the district court erred in finding that the plaintiffs failed to allege facts that state a claim under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, the 15th Amendment, or Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; (2) whether, under Section 2, the district court erred in requiring that the plaintiffs allege facts that created a plausible inference that the intent, rather than the effect, of the Arkansas General Assembly's redistricting legislation was necessary to be pled in order to state a claim; and (3) whether plaintiffs, in a case solely challenging the “cracking” of Black voters from a larger Black community in their historic congressional district into two other districts, thereby diluting the voting strength of that Black community, must allege and prove the three prongs of this court’s decision in Thornburg v. Gingles.
23-135 Intel Corporation v. Vidal Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), which bars judicial review of “[t]he determination ... whether to institute an inter partes review,” applies even when no institution decision is challenged to preclude review of U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rules setting standards governing institution decisions.
23-115 Elldakli v. Garland Whether a status-adjustment decision by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services constitutes final agency action within the meaning of the Administrative Procedure Act when removal proceedings are not pending.
23-108 Snyder v. U.S. Whether section 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.
23-97 Daves v. Dallas County, Texas (1) Whether Younger v. Harris and its progeny require federal courts to abstain from adjudicating petitioners' constitutional challenges to respondents' pretrial detention of many thousands of presumptively innocent people; and (2) whether, under this court's precedent, legislation enacted during a lawsuit renders the asserted claims moot if the legislation does not provide the relief sought in the litigation, such that the courts could still provide the plaintiff with effectual relief.
23-7 Hamlet v. Hoxie (1) Whether it is “clearly established” for purposes of qualified immunity that the Eighth Amendment bars a prison official from forcing a person with diabetes and open wounds to endure prolonged and unnecessary exposure to feces; and (2) whether the court should overrule Procunier v. Navarette and hold that qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not extend to a suit alleging that a prison guard subjected the plaintiff to unlawful conditions of confinement, because similar state officials were not immune from similar suits at common law.
22-1218 Smith v. Spirrizzi Whether Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act requires district courts to stay a lawsuit pending arbitration, or whether district courts have discretion to dismiss when all claims are subject to arbitration.
22-1216 Ferguson v. U.S. Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2255 limits a district court’s discretion to consider—among other circumstance-specific factors—legal errors in prior proceedings as "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warranting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) as amended by the First Step Act.
22-1079 Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company Whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
22-459 Ohio v. CSX Transportation (1) Whether 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b) preempts state laws that regulate the amount of time a stopped train may block a grade crossing; and (2) whether 49 U.S.C. § 20106(a)(2) saves from preemption state laws that regulate the amount of time a stopped train may block a grade crossing. CVSG: 11/21/2023

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-120 U.S. Soccer Federation v. Relevent Sports, LLC Whether allegations that members of an association agreed to adhere to the association’s rules, without more, are sufficient to plead the element of conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
23-9 AstraZeneca UK, Ltd. v. Atchley (1) Whether the court should grant, vacate, and remand this case for further proceedings in light of its decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh; (2) whether plaintiffs plead proximate causation as required for direct liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act by alleging that defendants transacted with a foreign-government agency that was in turn infiltrated by the group that injured plaintiffs; and (3) whether a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization “plan[s]” or “authorize[s]” a specific attack—as required for ATA aiding-and-abetting liability—by providing general support or inspiration to a different group that carries out the attack.
22-957 Dermody v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Whether an annuity that satisfies the condition in 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)(2)(B)(i) determining the Medicaid eligibility of a married institutionalized person must name the state as the first remainder beneficiary in order to avoid Section 1396p(c)(1)’s transfer penalty.
22-886 Blenheim Capital Holdings Ltd. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. Whether a foreign government’s procurement of goods for a military purpose, through a contract with a U.S. company, is commercial activity within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.