| 21-6001 |
Andrus v. Texas |
(1) Whether, on remand, the Texas court rejected the Supreme Court’s conclusions in Andrus v.
Texas, which were amply supported by the habeas and
trial records, and whether the Texas court disregarded the Supreme Court’s express guidance
for conducting a prejudice analysis pursuant to Strickland v. Washington; and (2) whether the Texas court’s failure to adhere to the Supreme Court’s decision conflicts with
our constitutional system of vertical stare decisis and creates widespread
confusion regarding the proper legal standard that courts must use in
assessing whether the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of
counsel is violated in death-penalty cases. |
| 21-771 |
Herrera v. Cleveland |
Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(C) categorically excludes relation back — when a plaintiff files an amended complaint changing the name of a defendant and that amendment relates back to the date of the original complaint — if the plaintiff initially used John Doe placeholders in the complaint due to inadequate knowledge
regarding the defendants’ names. |
| 21-770 |
Hawkins v. Banks |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit wrongly
denied qualified immunity to Officer
Shelby Hawkins by finding the use of force was
not reasonable as a matter of law when
Hawkins had probable cause to
believe there was a threat of serious
physical injury or death; and (2) whether the 8th Circuit wrongly
denied qualified immunity to Hawkins in the absence of any precedent
finding a Fourth Amendment violation
based on similar facts. |
| 21-767 |
Williams v. U.S. |
Whether a district court may consider the 2018
amendment to the sentences mandated by 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) in determining whether a defendant has
shown “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). |
| 21-764 |
Huff v. Florida |
Whether, as the court below and two other states
hold, trial courts may close a courtroom pursuant to a
closure statute without undertaking an analysis under Waller v. Georgia; or, as nine states and the federal courts of appeals hold, the Sixth Amendment and Waller require
an assessment of the specific facts of the case and proposed closure, notwithstanding the existence of a statute governing closure. |
| 21-763 |
Ham v. Breckon |
Whether a district court has jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review a claim that a federal prisoner’s
sentence is invalid in light of an intervening and
retroactively applicable statutory-interpretation
decision of the Supreme Court, when circuit precedent
foreclosed the claim at the time of the prisoner’s prior motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. |
| 21-760 |
Kelly v. Animal Legal Defense Fund |
Whether Kan. Stat. Ann. § 47-1827(b), (c), and (d)
violate the free speech clause of the First
Amendment by criminalizing trespass by deception
at animal facilities with intent to damage the
enterprise. |
| 21-752 |
Hammond v. U.S. |
(1) Whether a government agent’s direction to a wireless carrier to send a signal to a person’s phone, so
that the phone reveals the person’s precise location
and movements in real time, is a search within the
meaning of the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether a government agent’s good faith but objectively incorrect reading of a statute prevents the exclusion of constitutionally tainted evidence in a criminal trial. |
| 21-746 |
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated |
Whether a licensee has Article III standing to challenge the validity of a patent covered by a license
agreement that covers multiple patents. |
| 21-742 |
Lyft v. Seifu |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires the
enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement
providing that a worker cannot raise representative
claims under California’s Private Attorneys General
Act, thereby preempting the contrary holding in
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC. |
| 21-728 |
Cedado Nuñez v. U.S. |
Whether the three ways
to identify nationless vessels enumerated in the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act are exhaustive. |
| 21-721 |
Transpacific Steel LLC v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the president acted outside of the
scope of the statutory authority Congress granted
under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 by doubling the tariff on steel
imports from Turkey after the expiration of the
statutory periods for presidential action specified
in Section 232(c)(1); and (2) whether Section 232, as construed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit majority in this case to eliminate mandatory deadlines for presidential action, is
inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Federal
Energy Administration v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. and is therefore an
unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to
the president in violation of Article I, section 8 of
the Constitution and the principle of separation of
powers because it cedes to the president the
virtually unbounded power to tax and otherwise
regulate imports. |
| 21-717 |
Does v. Mills |
(1) Whether a state governor’s order
mandating that private healthcare employers, on
penalty of revocation of their business licenses,
terminate their healthcare workers who are not fully
vaccinated for COVID-19, and deny any worker’s
request for religious accommodation from the mandate while allowing medical exemptions from
the mandate, violates the employers’ and employees’
rights under the free exercise clause of the First
Amendment; (2) whether, under the supremacy clause of
the United States Constitution, a state governor’s
order mandating that private healthcare employers,
on penalty of revocation of their business licenses,
terminate their healthcare workers who are not fully
vaccinated for COVID-19 with no opportunity for
any worker to seek a religious accommodation from
the mandate, is preempted by the religious
accommodation provisions of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964; and (3) whether Article III courts have incidental
equitable powers to grant preliminary injunctive
relief to employees in aid of their Title VII remedies
when the harm suffered by the employees in the
absence of injunctive relief has a chilling effect on
their religious free exercise and protection from
religious discrimination. |
| 21-708 |
CLMS Management Services Limited Partnership v. Amwins Brokerage of Georgia, LLC |
Whether a provision of
state law prohibiting mandatory arbitration in a policy
of insurance issued by a foreign insurer is preempted
by the Federal Arbitration Act or whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act reverse-preempts the Federal Arbitration
Act. |
| 21-707 |
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina |
(1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of
higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the
student body, without proving that the alternative
would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality
or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity. |
| 21-706 |
Gilbert v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, in a bribery prosecution based on
issue-advocacy payments that would otherwise enjoy
First Amendment protection, the government must
prove that the payments were explicitly linked to
official action; and (2) whether a jury must be instructed that merely
“expressing support” for a policy cannot support
conviction under the federal bribery laws. |
| 21-692 |
Haystings v. Korb |
Whether, when a prisoner violates the Prison Litigation Reform Act by initiating litigation without first exhausting administrative remedies, the prisoner can escape that violation by filing a supplemental pleading under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d). |
| 21-683 |
Kitchin v. Bridgeton Landfill, LLC |
Whether the Class Action Fairness Act’s “local controversy” exception under which a federal district court must decline jurisdiction over a class action can be satisfied when the local and non-local
defendants engaged in the same alleged conduct (as
the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 9th, and 10th Circuits hold), or
whether the alleged conduct of the local defendant
must be different from that of the non-local defendants (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th and 8th Circuits hold). |
| 21-682 |
Shivers v. U.S. |
Whether the discretionary function exception
to the Federal Tort Claims Act immunizes the
United States from tort liability for acts taken by its
employees in violation of the Constitution. |
| 21-679 |
Shoop v. Cassano |
(1) Whether the Supreme Court should summarily reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th
Circuit’s award of habeas relief; and (2) whether, when a three-judge panel clearly errs in
awarding habeas relief, its decision raises questions important enough to justify en banc review. |
| 21-676 |
Musta v. Mendota Heights Dental Center |
Whether the Controlled Substances Act preempts an order
under a state workers’ compensation law requiring an
employer to reimburse an injured employee for the cost
of medical marijuana used to treat a work-related
injury. |
| 21-674 |
North Carolina State Health Plan for Teachers & State Employees v. Kadel |
Whether the residual clause of Section 1003 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments
of 1986 provides
an “unequivocal textual waiver” of sovereign
immunity, permitting suits against states under
subsequently enacted statutory provisions that refer
to neither states nor sovereign immunity. |
| 21-659 |
Asociación de Periodistas de Puerto Rico v. Puerto Rico |
(1) Whether courts may summarily close judicial
proceedings and deny access to the official recordings
of those proceedings without determining whether the
First Amendment public access right attaches to
them; and (2) whether Article 5.005 of Puerto Rico’s
Judiciary Act of 2003, as construed
by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court to require
automatic closure of all domestic violence proceedings
and the official recordings of those proceedings,
violates the First Amendment public access right
under Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court. |
| 21-641 |
Ferrellgas Partners, LP v. Director, Division of Taxation of New Jersey |
Whether a levy that
raises revenue for a state’s general fund, and that is
not restricted to the in-state activities of the levy-payor, may be characterized as a locally focused regulatory fee, and thus be imposed without regard to
whether it is internally consistent. |
| 21-637 |
Lee v. Garlick |
(1) Whether, in granting habeas corpus relief to a state court
prisoner, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit created a circuit split and
denied the state court judgment the deference mandated
by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) when it relied on a test that was
not clearly established by the Supreme Court’s precedents to
determine that an autopsy report was testimonial under
the confrontation clause; (2) whether the 2nd Circuit violated Yarborough
v. Alvarado by applying an overly
specific “unreasonable application” analysis; and (3) whether the 2nd Circuit violated the harmless
error standard in Brecht v. Abrahamson in ruling that the admission of the autopsy report
was not harmless despite (a) uncertainty as to whether
the report was admissible to form the basis of an in-court
expert opinion, and (b) overwhelming evidence of guilt
including surveillance video of James Garlick stabbing the victim
to death. |
| 21-634 |
Wright v. Indiana |
(1) Whether a defendant’s otherwise clear
invocation of his right to represent himself becomes
equivocal when he prefers representation by an
attorney who cannot or will not represent him; and (2) whether courts may override a defendant’s
right to represent himself in a high-penalty case out of
fear that he will be unable to represent himself well. |
| 21-622 |
Devine v. Absolute Activist Value Master Fund Limited |
Whether the voluntary dismissal of a plaintiff’s
suit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)
permanently strips the district court of jurisdiction to
consider a motion to modify a previously issued
protective order. |
| 21-605 |
Roberson v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, in a bribery prosecution based on
issue-advocacy payments that would otherwise enjoy
First Amendment protection, the government must
prove that the payments were explicitly linked to
official action; and (2) whether a jury must be instructed that merely
“expressing support” for a policy cannot support
conviction under the federal bribery laws. |
| 21-603 |
Ohio v. Brinkman |
(1) Whether the due process clause of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution
prohibits review of the entire record to determine
whether a guilty plea was knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily entered; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to resolve the
conflict among the courts on whether the failure
to strictly adhere to the advisement of rights in
Boykin v. Alabama should result in the automatic reversal
of a guilty plea. |
| 21-594 |
Alphabet Inc. v. Rhode Island |
Whether the “risk factors”
disclosed in a securities filing must disclose only future risks or must also disclose whether a risk has
come to fruition in the past. |
| 21-587 |
Clarkston v. Whole Woman’s Health |
Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa.
v. Casey. |
| 21-583 |
Carlton v. Whole Woman’s Health |
Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa.
v. Casey. |
| 21-582 |
Dickson v. Whole Woman’s Health |
(1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa.
v. Casey; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should overrule Whole Woman’s
Health v. Hellerstedt, which refused to enforce an explicit severability requirement in a
state abortion statute. |
| 21-581 |
Loughry v. U.S. |
Whether circumstantial evidence of extrajudicial
social-media contact with a juror about the case can
be enough to entitle a criminal defendant to a hearing under Remmer v. United States to determine “what actually
transpired, or whether the incidents that may have
occurred were harmful or harmless.” |
| 21-577 |
Eshelman v. Puma Biotechnology |
Whether, under Unitherm Food
Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
defendant who did not file a Rule 50 motion for
judgment as a matter of law in the district court can
nonetheless raise a sufficiency of the evidence
challenge to damages on appeal. |
| 21-568 |
Jarvis v. U.S. |
Whether non-retroactive changes in federal law
can serve as “extraordinary and compelling reasons”
warranting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). |
| 21-552 |
Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. v. Anderson |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, in conflict with other
U.S. Courts of Appeals, erred in concluding that Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice narrowed Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
v. Dabit’s interpretation of the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act’s “in
connection with” prong to require that the alleged
deception induce a specific transaction in a particular
covered security. |
| 21-551 |
Watford v. U.S. |
Whether a district court may consider the 2018
amendment to the sentences mandated by 18 U.S.C.
§ 924(c) in determining whether a defendant has
shown “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warranting a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). |
| 21-541 |
Tuggle v. U.S. |
Whether long-term, continuous, and surreptitious video surveillance of a home and its curtilage constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. |
| 21-540 |
Warsaw Orthopedic v. Sasso |
Whether a dispute raises substantial issues of
federal patent law when its resolution necessarily
depends on patent-law determinations regarding
claim scope and validity. |
| 21-538 |
Reagle v. Lewis |
Whether, after Roderick Lewis's counsel failed at sentencing to say anything more than that Lewis would
speak on his own behalf, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit misapplied 28 U.S.C. § 2254
in holding that the failure to apply United States v. Cronic — in which the Supreme Court suggested that, though Strickland v. Washington requires an ineffective-assistance claimant to
prove both deficient performance and prejudice, some “circumstances. . . are so
likely to prejudice the accused that the cost of litigating their effect in a particular case is unjustified” — violated
“clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States.” |
| 21-533 |
Martin v. Castro |
(1) Whether, when a law enforcement officer reasonably
deploys a police K9 to restrain a fleeing suspect known
to have a history of violent crime and believed to be in
possession of a deadly weapon and under the influence
of an illegal stimulant, the Fourth Amendment is
violated when the K9’s handler commands the K9 to
release the suspect within seconds after the suspect is
handcuffed and ceases resisting arrest; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it failed to
consider the totality of the circumstances in assessing
the reasonableness of force used to restrain a suspect
with a known history of violent crime who is actively
resisting arrest and is believed to be in possession of a
deadly weapon and under the influence of an illegal
stimulant; and (3) whether the 9th Circuit violated City and County of
San Francisco v. Sheehan and other binding precedent
when it denied a police officer qualified immunity by
defining clearly established law at too high a level of
generality. |
| 21-522 |
Simko v. U.S. Steel Corporation |
Whether, or under what circumstances, a claim
that an employer unlawfully retaliated against an
employee for filing a charge of discrimination with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the remedial structure of Title VII
may be addressed in an ensuing civil action, if the
employee did not file a second formal administrative
charge specifically alleging the retaliation. |
| 21-516 |
Haggerty v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the “interracial” nature of a minor offense
in Indian Country is an element of 18 U.S.C. § 1152,
rather than an affirmative defense, and thus must be
both pled and proved by the prosecution; and (2) whether the government must plead and prove
the “interracial” nature of a minor offense in Indian
Country to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1152. |
| 21-511 |
Shoop v. Twyford |
(1) Whether federal courts may use the All Writs Act to order the transportation of
state prisoners for reasons not enumerated in
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); and (2) whether, before a court grants an order allowing a habeas petitioner to develop new evidence, it must determine whether the evidence could aid the petitioner in proving his entitlement to habeas relief, and
whether the evidence may permissibly be considered
by a habeas court. |
| 21-505 |
Bank of America Corporation v. Fund Liquidation Holdings LLC |
Whether a district court lacking Article III
jurisdiction can create such jurisdiction by adding a
new plaintiff via Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. |
| 21-499 |
Vega v. Tekoh |
Whether a plaintiff may state a claim for relief
against a law enforcement officer under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 based simply on an officer’s failure to provide the
warnings prescribed in Miranda v. Arizona. |
| 21-495 |
Black v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation |
(1) Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act permits the termination of a distressed pension plan through an agreement between
Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation and the plan administrator; (2) whether termination through such an agreement,
which avoids a hearing, violates the participants’ constitutional rights to due process; and (3) whether, if ERISA and due process allow for termination by agreement, the termination’s substantive
legality is to be judged under the standards in 29 U.S.C. § 1342(c),
or whether it is enough that the conditions in Section 1342(a) to “institute” proceedings may exist. |
| 21-477 |
Self v. Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria |
Whether the immovable-property exception
applies to tribal sovereign immunity. |
| 21-476 |
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis |
(1) Whether applying a public-accommodation law
to compel an artist to speak or stay silent, contrary to
the artist’s sincerely held religious beliefs, violates
the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First
Amendment; and (2) whether a public-accommodation law that
authorizes secular but not religious exemptions is
generally applicable under Employment Division v. Smith, and if so, whether
the Supreme Court should overrule Smith. |
| 21-475 |
Brookhart v. Smith |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)’s strictures in
awarding habeas relief to the respondent, Kenneth Smith, based on its own
reweighing of the evidence rather than deferring to
the state court’s contrary view. |
| 21-469 |
Jobe v. National Transportation Safety Board |
(1) Whether Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act — which provides that federal agencies need not release privileged “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters” — includes an unwritten “consultant corollary,” under which documents prepared by private, outside consultants are
deemed “intra-agency memorandums or letters”; and (2) whether any “consultant corollary” in FOIA
Exemption 5 could ever render “intra-agency” the
communications between an agency and (1) employees of a private, regulated company with an economic
interest in the agency’s actions; or (2) the representative of a foreign government. |
| 21-468 |
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross |
(1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic
economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide
industry state a violation of the dormant commerce
clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle
described in the Supreme Court’s decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that
is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state
housing of farm animals, state a claim under Pike v. Bruce
Church, Inc. |
| 21-467 |
Parish v. Oklahoma |
Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma applies retroactively to convictions that were
final when McGirt was announced. |
| 21-465 |
Kisor v. McDonough |
Whether the term “relevant official service department records” in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1)’s “reconsideration” provision encompasses all records that “go
to a benefits criterion,” or is instead restricted to only
those records that “relate to the basis of the [Department of Veterans Affairs’] initial
denial of benefits,” as in Kisor v. Wilkie. |
| 21-462 |
Johnson v. Bethany Hospice and Palliative Care LLC |
Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires plaintiffs in False
Claims Act cases who plead a fraudulent scheme with
particularity to also plead specific details of false
claims. |
| 21-454 |
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether Rapanos v. United States — in which the Supreme Court held that the Clean Water Act does not
regulate all wetlands, but without a majority opinion explaining why
that is so — should be revisited to adopt the
plurality’s test for wetlands jurisdiction under the
Clean Water Act, in which only those wetlands that
have a continuous surface water connection to
regulated waters may themselves be regulated. |
| 21-453 |
Uber Technologies v. Gregg |
Whether agreements calling for individual
arbitration are enforceable under the Federal
Arbitration Act with respect to claims asserted under
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. |
| 21-442 |
Reed v. Goertz |
Whether the statute of
limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of
crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any
appeals (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held), or whether
it begins to run at the moment the state trial court
denies DNA testing, despite any subsequent appeal
(as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, joining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, held
below). |
| 21-441 |
Siegel v. Fitzgerald |
Whether the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act violates the
uniformity requirement of the Constitution's bankruptcy clause by increasing quarterly fees solely in districts under the U.S. Trustee program, not in those under the Bankruptcy Administrator program. |
| 21-439 |
Nance v. Ward |
(1) Whether an inmate’s as-applied method-of-execution challenge must be raised in a habeas
petition instead of through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action if the
inmate pleads an alternative method of execution
not currently authorized by state law; and (2) whether, if such a challenge must be raised in
habeas, it constitutes a successive petition when
the challenge would not have been ripe at the
time of the inmate’s first habeas petition. |
| 21-432 |
Arellano v. McDonough |
(1) Whether the rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling from Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs applies to the one-year statutory
deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking
retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, whether the
government has rebutted that presumption; and (2) whether, if 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to
equitable tolling, this case should be remanded
so the agency can consider the particular facts
and circumstances in the first instance. |
| 21-427 |
Lamoureux v. Montana |
Whether a statute that criminalizes speech intended to annoy or offend is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment. |
| 21-420 |
Postmates, LLC v. Santana |
Whether agreements calling for individual
arbitration are enforceable under the Federal
Arbitration Act with respect to claims asserted under
the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act. |
| 21-418 |
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District |
(1) Whether a public-school employee who says a
brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech
that lacks any First Amendment protection; and (2) whether, assuming that such religious
expression is private and protected by the free speech
and free exercise clauses, the establishment clause
nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it. |
| 21-406 |
Impax Laboratories v. Federal Trade Commission |
(1) Whether the presence of a “reverse payment”
that exceeds a patentee’s saved litigation costs and the
value of any services provided by a patent challenger
suffices to render a patent settlement unlawful,
despite the Supreme Court’s holding to the contrary in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc.; and (2) whether courts reviewing antitrust challenges
to patent settlements can disregard evidence of the
strength of the patents at issue, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
held here, or instead whether they must consider what
“the patent’s strength would otherwise permit,” as the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held in King Drug Co. of Florence v.
Smithkline Beecham Corp. |
| 21-404 |
U.S. v. Washington |
Whether a state workers’ compensation law that applies exclusively to federal contract workers who perform services at a specified federal facility is barred by
principles of intergovernmental immunity, or is instead
authorized by 40 U.S.C. § 3172(a), which permits the application of state workers’ compensation laws to federal
facilities “in the same way and to the same extent as if
the premises were under the exclusive jurisdiction of
the State.” |
| 21-396 |
Delta Air Lines v. Oman |
Whether, consistent with the commerce clause
and the deregulatory preferences of the Airline Deregulation Act, California may extend its wage-and-hour laws to flight attendants who spend the vast
majority of their workweek outside of California
simply because they report to a California airport to
begin their multi-day, multi-state work shift. |
| 21-395 |
McCarthy v. Pelosi |
Whether the speech-and-debate clause forecloses
judicial review of the constitutionality of the proxy
voting resolution in this action against the speaker of the house,
the clerk and the sergeant-at-arms; and (2) whether the U.S. House of Representatives
resolution allowing members to cast floor
votes by proxy is unconstitutional. |
| 21-388 |
John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy v. Evers |
Whether the government’s selective exclusion of
members of the press from the incoming governor's official
press conferences and briefings implicates the equal treatment
guarantee of the First Amendment’s press clause, as
the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd and District of Columbia Circuits have held, or
instead should be analyzed under the speech clause’s
forum analysis, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for 7th Circuit below and the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit have held. |
| 21-382 |
Strauss v. Credit Lyonnais, S.A. |
Whether a person who knowingly transfers substantial funds to a designated foreign terrorist organizations aids and abets that
organization’s terrorist acts for purposes of civil liability under Justice
Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. |
| 21-381 |
Weiss v. National Westminster Bank, PLC |
Whether a person who knowingly transfers substantial funds to a designated foreign terrorist organizations aids and abets that
organization’s terrorist acts for purposes of civil liability under Justice
Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. |
| 21-380 |
Brackeen v. Haaland |
(1) Whether the Indian Child Welfare
Act of 1978’s placement preferences —
which disfavor non-Indian adoptive families in child-placement proceedings involving an “Indian child”
and thereby disadvantage those children — discriminate on the basis of race in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether ICWA’s placement preferences exceed
Congress’s Article I authority by invading the arena
of child placement — the “virtually exclusive province
of the States,” as stated in Sosna v. Iowa — and otherwise commandeering state courts
and state agencies to carry out a federal child-placement program. |
| 21-379 |
Texas v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
(1) Whether an agency rule delegating rulemaking
authority to a private entity violates the nondelegation
doctrine; and (2) whether the statute of limitations applicable to a
challenge to an agency rule that delegates rulemaking
authority to a private entity starts to run when the
agency delegates the authority or when the private entity exercises the delegated authority. |
| 21-378 |
Texas v. Haaland |
(1) Whether Congress has the power under the Indian commerce clause or otherwise to enact
laws governing state child-custody proceedings
merely because the child is or may be an Indian; (2) whether the Indian classifications used in the
Indian Child Welfare Act and its implementing regulations violate
the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee; (3) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the anticommandeering doctrine
by requiring states to implement Congress’s
child-custody regime; and (4) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the nondelegation doctrine by allowing individual tribes to alter the placement
preferences enacted by Congress. |
| 21-377 |
Cherokee Nation v. Brackeen |
(1) Whether the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred by invalidating
six sets of Indian Child Welfare
Act provisions — 25 U.S.C. §§1912(a), (d),
(e)-(f), 1915(a)-(b), (e), and 1951(a) — as impermissibly
commandeering states (including via its equally divided
affirmance); (2) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by reaching the
merits of the plaintiffs’ claims that ICWA’s placement
preferences violate equal protection; and (3) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by affirming (via
an equally divided court) the district court’s judgment
invalidating two of ICWA’s placement preferences, 25
U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), (b)(iii), as failing to satisfy the rational-basis standard of Morton v. Mancari. |
| 21-376 |
Haaland v. Brackeen |
(1) Whether various provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of
1978 — namely,
the minimum standards of Section 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f);
the placement-preference provisions of Section 1915(a)
and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions of Sections
1915(e) and 1951(a) — violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment; (2) whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III
standing to challenge ICWA’s placement preferences
for “other Indian families” and for
“Indian foster home[s]”; and (3) whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and
therefore consistent with equal protection. |
| 21-374 |
Struve v. Iowa |
Whether police officers in the more than 20 states that have laws that prohibit
sending text messages on a cellphone while driving,
but that allow drivers to use their cellphones for other
purposes, such as navigation or playing music, have
reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to
initiate an investigatory traffic stop, when they
observe a driver briefly holding and manipulating a
cellphone, in a manner that does not indicate whether
the cellphone is being used for a lawful or prohibited
purpose. |
| 21-365 |
Branch Banking & Trust Company v. Sevier County Schools Federal Credit Union |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act displaces a
state common-law rule forbidding companies from
adding an arbitration requirement to their standard-form contract with customers unless the contract
already includes a dispute-resolution clause. |
| 21-335 |
Begani v. U.S. |
Whether the Constitution permits the
court-martial of retired servicemembers for offenses
committed after their discharge from active duty. |
| 21-273 |
Brune v. U.S. |
Whether, under the Fifth Amendment’s double-jeopardy
clause, upon a defendant’s plea of guilty, jeopardy
attaches when the district court accepts the defendant’s
plea of guilty, when the district court adjudges the defendant guilty of the offense or independent of a specific event. |
| 21-268 |
Coverall North America v. Rivas |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state-law rule which
precludes the enforcement of an agreement to arbitrate claims on an individual basis
when a state declares that a private litigant has an unwaivable right to pursue
certain claims on a representative basis. |
| 21-267 |
Broadnax v. Lumpkin |
Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) and Cullen v. Pinholster, a federal habeas petitioner
may present evidence of a prosecutor’s racially discriminatory intent in support of a claim under Batson v. Kentucky when the evidence was not available to the petitioner during state
court Batson proceedings. |
| 21-258 |
Oklahoma v. Davis |
Whether McGirt v. Oklahoma should be overruled. |
| 21-241 |
Monsanto Company v. Hardeman |
(1) Whether the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim when the warning cannot be added to a
product without the Environmental Protection Agency's approval and the EPA has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not appropriate; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s standard for admitting expert testimony — which departs from other
circuits’ standards — is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s
precedent and Federal Rule of Evidence 702. |
| 21-234 |
George v. McDonough |
Whether, when the Department
of Veterans Affairs denies a veteran’s claim for
benefits in reliance on an agency interpretation that
is later deemed invalid under the plain text of the
statutory provisions in effect at the time of the denial,
that is the kind of “clear and unmistakable error” that
the veteran may invoke to challenge VA’s decision. |
| 21-211 |
Valueland Auto Sales v. U.S. |
Whether, when the district court dismisses all criminal charges against a defendant, that court has jurisdiction over a motion to expunge the records relating to those charges, as held by the U.S Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 10th and D.C. Circuits, or whether the district court lacks jurisdiction over such motions, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 11th Circuits. |
| 21-210 |
Wisconsin v. Jensen |
(1) Whether a person’s statement expressing fear about a possible future crime is testimonial under the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause; and (2) whether, when a person reports ongoing psychological domestic abuse and expresses fear about future physical harm, the person’s statement aimed at ending an ongoing emergency is non-testimonial. |
| 21-198 |
Knights v. U.S. |
(1) Whether a court analyzing if a Fourth Amendment seizure has occurred is categorically barred from considering a person’s race; and (2) whether a seizure occurred under all the circumstances of this case. |
| 21-187 |
Mohamud v. Weyker |
Whether a constitutional remedy is available against federal officers for individual instances of law enforcement overreach in violation of the Fourth Amendment. |
| 21-184 |
Byrd v. Lamb |
Whether, under either step of the Abbasi test, line-level federal officers may be sued for violating the Fourth Amendment. |
| 21-159 |
Aposhian v. Garland |
(1) Whether courts should defer under Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. to an agency interpretation of federal law when the
federal government affirmatively disavows Chevron
deference; (2) whether the Chevron framework applies to
statutes with criminal-law applications; and (3)whether, if a court determines that a
statute with criminal-law applications is ambiguous,
the rule of lenity requires the court to construe the
statute in favor of the criminal defendant,
notwithstanding a contrary federal agency
construction. |
| 21-133 |
Rojas v. Federal Aviation Administration |
Whether the 9th Circuit, in a sharply divided en banc decision, erred by adopting the consultant corollary and holding that “intra-agency memorandums or letters” in Freedom of Information Act’s Exemption 5 (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5)) encompasses documents prepared by APTMetrics, a private, outside consultant. |
| 21-119 |
Postmates, LLC v. Rimler |
Whether agreements calling for individual arbitration are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act with respect to claims asserted under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. |
| 21-118 |
Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may review, by appeal or mandamus, a decision of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office denying a petition for inter partes review of a patent, where review is sought on the grounds that the denial rested on an agency rule that exceeds the PTO’s authority under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, is arbitrary or capricious, or was adopted without required notice-and-comment rulemaking. |
| 21-31 |
Fast Auto Loans v. Maldonado |
Whether California’s McGill rule, under which agreements for individualized arbitration are invalidated when a plaintiff seeks public injunctive relief, is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act. |
| 20-1046 |
Marin Housing Authority v. Reilly |
Whether a public housing authority, in calculating a family’s annual income, is required by 24 C.F.R. 5.609(c)(16) to exclude Medicaid-funded payments made to a family by a state agency to allow the Section 8 tenant to provide personal caregiving services in order to keep a developmentally disabled family member at home. CVSG: 11/10/2021 |
| 20-609 |
Gannett Co. v. Quatrone |
Whether a plaintiff adequately pleads breach of the
duties of prudence and diversification solely by alleging that fiduciaries permitted participants in a defined contribution plan to choose, from an adequately
diversified menu of investment options, to invest in
an undiversified single-stock fund. CVSG: 11/09/2021 |
| 20-603 |
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety |
Whether Congress has the
power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states
pursuant to its constitutional war powers. CVSG: 11/09/2021 |
