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)
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.
23-466 L. W. v. Skrmetti (1) Whether Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, which categorically bans gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adolescents, triggers heightened scrutiny and likely violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause; and (2) whether Senate Bill 1 likely violates the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children guaranteed by the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
23-477 U.S. v. Skrmetti Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
23-492 Jane Doe 1 v. Kentucky ex rel. Coleman, Attorney General (1) Whether, under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 311.372(2), which bans medical treatments “for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of, or to validate a minor’s perception of, the minor’s sex, if that appearance or perception is inconsistent with the minor’s sex,” should be subjected to heightened scrutiny because it burdens parents’ right to direct the medical treatment of their children; (2) whether, under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, § 311.372(2) should be subjected to heightened scrutiny because it classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status; and (3) whether petitioners are likely to show that § 311.372(2) does not satisfy heightened scrutiny.
23-753 City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.
23-877 Harrel v. Raoul (1) Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with semiautomatic firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes; (2) whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with ammunition magazines that are in common use for lawful purposes; and (3) whether enforcement of Illinois’s semiautomatic firearm and ammunition magazine bans should be enjoined.
23-878 Herrera v. Raoul (1) Whether semiautomatic rifles and standard handgun and rifle magazines do not count as “Arms” within the ordinary meaning of the Second Amendment’s plain text; and (2) whether there is a broad historical tradition of states banning protected arms and standard magazines from law-abiding citizens’ homes.
23-879 Barnett v. Raoul Whether Illinois’s sweeping ban on common and long-lawful arms violates the Second Amendment.
23-880 National Association for Gun Rights v. City of Naperville, Illinois (1) Whether the state of Illinois’s ban of certain handguns is constitutional in light of the holding in District of Columbia v. Heller that handgun bans are categorically unconstitutional; (2) whether the “in common use” test announced in Heller is hopelessly circular and therefore unworkable; and (3) whether the government can ban the sale, purchase, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and firearm magazines that are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes when there is no analogous Founding-era regulation.
23-944 Langley v. Kelly (1) Whether the state of Illinois’s absolute ban of certain commonly owned semi-automatic handguns is constitutional in light of the holding in District of Columbia v. Heller that handgun bans are categorially unconstitutional; (2) whether the state of Illinois’s absolute ban of all commonly owned semi-automatic handgun magazines over 15 rounds is constitutional in light of the holding in Heller that handgun bans are categorially unconstitutional; and (3) whether the government can ban the sale, purchase, possession, and carriage of certain commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols, shotguns, and standard-capacity firearm magazines, tens of millions of which are possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, when there is no analogous historical ban as required by Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen.
23-1010 Gun Owners of America v. Raoul Whether Illinois’s categorical ban on millions of the most commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines in the nation, including the AR-15 rifle, violates the Second Amendment.
23-5597 Medrano v. Texas (1) Whether under all the circumstances — including an officer’s knowing and deliberate deployment of Rodolfo Medrano’s wife to elicit statements from him while he was in custody, the falsity of the information the officer gave her to convey to him, the strength of the incentive the officer proffered to induce him to speak, and the fact that similar tactics were deliberately employed to obtain confessions from codefendants — introduction of the resulting statement violated Medrano’s Fifth and 14th Amendment rights under Miranda v. Arizona; and (2) whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’s determination that Medrano's subsequent petition failed to satisfy the requirements of Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 11.071(5)(a)(2) was an adequate and independent state ground precluding merits review of his claim, where that provision authorizes a subsequent petition when “by a preponderance of the evidence, but for a violation of the United States Constitution no rational juror could have found the applicant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” and the confession whose constitutionality Medrano is challenging was the only significant evidence linking him to the capital murder with which he was charged.
23-6753 Avenatti v. U.S. (1) Whether the honest-services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, is void for vagueness; and (2) whether civil litigation conduct — in particular, an attorney’s settlement demand — can support federal criminal extortion liability.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-825 Delligatti v. U.S. Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.
23-715 Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-916 Clement v. Garland Whether, when a petitioner challenges a final order of removal by asserting his U.S. citizenship in a timely petition for review, a court of appeals may reject the challenge and affirm the removal order on the ground that the petitioner waived or forfeited the citizenship claim in immigration proceedings.
23-853 Credit Bureau Center, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission Whether Section 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits the award of “any exemplary or punitive damages,” empowers the FTC to seek and a court to award disgorgement of a business’s gross receipts as punishment for violating the act, and therefore impose the same remedy, for the same reasons, and for the same victims under Section 19 as was done under Section 13(b) of the act.
23-831 Caswell v. Colorado (1) Whether a prior misdemeanor conviction that elevates a subsequent offense from a misdemeanor to a felony is an element of the subsequent offense that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt under Apprendi v. New Jersey; and (2) whether this court should overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States as inconsistent with the Sixth Amendment as understood in Apprendi and its progeny.
23-830 Bassett v. Arizona Whether the Eighth Amendment permits a juvenile to be sentenced to life without parole under a system that did not afford the sentencing court discretion to choose any other option.
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).
23-824 U.S. v. Miller Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.
23-743 Consumers’ Research v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether 47 U.S.C. § 254 violates the nondelegation doctrine by imposing no limit on the Federal Communications Commission’s power to raise revenue for the Universal Service Fund; and (2) whether the FCC violated the private nondelegation doctrine by transferring its revenue-raising power to a private company run by industry interest groups.
23-741 Ahmed v. Securities and Exchange Commission Whether the cross-appeal rule, which prohibits the granting of a remedy in favor of an appellee absent the filing of a cross-appeal, is jurisdictional or otherwise mandatory, or instead admits of any exception, including, among other things, for remands or changes in substantive law.
23-704 Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals v. Federal Trade Commission (1) Whether a fundamental change in decisional law can independently support relief from a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6); and (2) whether the Federal Trade Commission can obtain compensatory equitable remedies as sanctions for civil contempt of a permanent injunction under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act when those remedies are not directly available under Section 13(b).
23-687 MRP Properties Company, LLC v. U.S. Whether, when analyzing whether an entity is a facility “operator” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, courts should consider pollution-producing activities that the entity managed, directed, or conducted, or should instead limit this analysis to waste-disposal and regulatory-compliance activities.
23-686 Cela v. Garland Whether noncitizens who were “granted asylum,” but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b).
23-668 King v. Emmons (1) Whether the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision was based on “an unreasonable determination” of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether the Georgia Supreme Court “unreasonably applied” this court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky under Section 2254(d)(1).
23-649 Price v. Montgomery County, Kentucky (1) Whether absolute immunity is unavailable under 42 U.S.C § 1983 where a prosecutor knowingly destroys exculpatory evidence; and (2) whether absolute immunity is unavailable under Section 1983 where a prosecutor defies a court order that compels specific action, leaving no room for the exercise of discretion.
23-645 Uber Technologies v. Gregg Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires the complete severance of arbitrable individual claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act from non-individual claims, with the individual claims committed to a separate proceeding.
23-578 Kinzy v. U.S. Whether a district court can insulate from vacatur a sentence based on an erroneously enhanced Sentencing Guidelines range simply by stating, without explanation, that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the error, or whether, to avoid resentencing, the district court must comply with this court’s clear command in Gall v. United States and Rita v. United States to sufficiently explain why the sentence imposed is warranted even if the Sentencing Guidelines range was wrong.
23-402 Oklahoma v. U.S. (1) Whether the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 violates the private non-delegation doctrine; and (2) whether the act violates the anti-commandeering doctrine by coercing states into funding a federal regulatory program.
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.
23-217 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. CVSG: 5/7/2024
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. CVSG: 5/21/2024
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. CVSG: 5/9/2024
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. CVSG: 5/14/2024

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)