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.
23-217 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
23-248 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.
23-466 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.
23-832 Porat v. U.S. Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and 18 U.S.C. § 1343, even if the defendant does not intend to cause economic harm and the alleged victim receives the goods or services for which it paid.
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.
23-909 Kousisis v. U.S. (1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are “property.”
23-934 Escobar v. Texas (1) 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; and (2) whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals erred in holding there was no due process violation because there is “no reasonable likelihood” that the prosecution’s use of admittedly false, misleading, and unreliable DNA evidence to secure petitioner’s capital conviction could have affected any juror’s judgment.
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.
23-970 NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB (1) Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents; and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the Act's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.
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.
23-1127 Wisconsin Bell v. U.S., ex rel. Todd Heath Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-931 J. W. v. Paley Whether a claim that a school official has used excessive force against a student that meets the definition of a Fourth Amendment seizure should be evaluated under the Fourth Amendment’s objective-reasonableness standard or the 14th Amendment’s shocks-the-conscience standard.
23-861 Feliciano v. Department of Transportation Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.
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.
23-824 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.
23-741 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.
23-686 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).
23-645 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.
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

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
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.
23-916 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.
23-830 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).
23-819 Allstates Refractory Contractors, LLC v. Su Whether Congress’s delegation of authority to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to write “reasonably necessary or appropriate” workplace-safety standards violates Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
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.
23-578 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.
23-9 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

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-969 Walen v. Burgum (1) Whether the district court erred by applying the incorrect legal standard when deciding that the North Dakota legislature had good reasons and a strong basis to believe two majority-Native-American subdistricts were required by the Voting Rights Act; (2) whether the district court erred by improperly weighing the evidence and granting inferences in favor of the moving party at summary judgment instead of setting the case for trial; and (3) whether the district court erred when it found that the legislature’s attempted compliance with Section 2 of the VRA can justify racial sorting of voters into districts.
23-952 Shell PLC v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (1) Whether claims seeking damages for the effects of interstate and international emissions on the global climate are beyond the limits of state law and thus preempted under the federal Constitution; and (2) whether the Clean Air Act preempts state-law claims predicated on damaging interstate emissions.
23-947 Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.
23-914 Zilka v. City of Philadelphia Tax Review Board Whether the commerce clause requires states to consider a taxpayer’s burden in light of the state tax scheme as a whole when crediting a taxpayer’s out-of-state tax liability, or permits states to credit out-of-state state and local tax liabilities as discrete tax burdens.