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)
22-77 Brown v. Louisiana Whether, where a defendant denies participating in a particular criminal act, another person’s confession stating that he and someone else committed the act—without mentioning the defendant—is favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland.
22-274 Donziger v. U.S. (1) Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2) authorizes judicial appointments of inferior executive officers; and (2) if so, whether such appointments violate the appointments clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
22-425 Carnahan v. Maloney Whether individual members of Congress have Article III standing to sue an executive agency to compel it to disclose information that the members have requested under 5 U.S.C. § 2954.
22-429 Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.
22-580 Hamm v. Smith Whether, in an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution case, an alternative method of execution is feasible and readily implemented merely because the executing state has statutorily authorized the method.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22-529 Cantero v. Bank of America Whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.
22-501 Alonzo v. Schwab Whether the 14th Amendment prohibits intentional racial discrimination in redistricting where the minority voters discriminated against are not sufficiently numerous to form a majority of eligible voters in a single-member district.
22-484 Pierluisi v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (1) What standard of review governs a district court’s evaluation of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico’s determination that Puerto Rican legislation “would impair or defeat the purposes of” the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act and its review of that legislation for consistency with the fiscal plan; (2) whether this standard of review requires the Board to reasonably and contemporaneously explain its decisions without relying on post-hoc justifications; and (3) whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the Title III Court’s holding that the Board’s determinations regarding Puerto Rican Acts 47, 82, 138, and 176 were not arbitrary and capricious.
22-456 Wilson v. McDonough Whether a complaint that states a claim may be dismissed on the grounds that a plaintiff waived an argument against dismissal by failing to make the argument in opposition to a motion to dismiss.
22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (1) Whether, under a proper application of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Magnuson-Stevens Act implicitly grants the National Marine Fisheries Service the power to force domestic vessels to pay the salaries of the monitors they must carry; and (2) whether the court should overrule Chevron, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
22-349 Flagstar Bank v. Kivett Whether the National Bank Act preempts state laws that, like California Civil Code § 2954.8(a), attempt to set the terms on which federally chartered banks may offer mortgage escrow accounts authorized by federal law.
22-18 Cuker Interactive, LLC v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Whether a federal court deciding a state-law issue in a bankruptcy case must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules or federal choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs. CVSG: 2/17/2023

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22A800 West Virginia v. B.P.J. Whether the Supreme Court should vacate the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit's injunction of a West Virginia law that bans girls who are transgender from participating in girl's sports in school.
22-5891 Burns v. Mays (1) Whether an ineffective assistance claim may be based on counsel’s failure to exercise a state-law right to introduce residual doubt evidence at a capital sentencing; (2) whether counsel provides ineffective assistance at capital sentencing if they fail to establish the defendant’s lesser moral culpability by demonstrating that he did not kill a victim, even if the lesser culpability proof fails to negate all aggravating (eligibility) factors; and (3) whether it constitutes deficient performance under Strickland v. Washington if trial counsel postpones their preparations for sentencing until a brief post-guilt phase recess; and if deficient, whether counsel’s performance can be excused, if omitted mitigation evidence fails to explain why the defendant committed the offense.
22-864 Ohio v. D.R. Whether the 14th Amendment’s due process clause entitles juvenile sex offenders to hearings at which courts have discretion to lift statutorily mandated sex-offender-registration obligations.
22-859 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and (3) whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.
22-857 Foster v. Wearry (1) Whether preparing witnesses to bolster existing evidence intended for use at the criminal trial, after probable cause has been determined, is a function “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” and “in presenting the State’s case” such that absolute immunity applies under Imbler v. Pachtman and its progeny; and (2) whether the absolute immunity that applies to prosecutors for conduct under the “functional approach” embraced in Imbler extends to law enforcement officers performing the same conduct while assisting in the prosecution of the criminal charge.
22-848 Fox v. Campbell (1) Whether the Fourth Amendment standard for evaluating unreasonable force claims established in Graham v. Connor or the Fourteenth Amendment standard for evaluating actions of law enforcement announced in County of Sacramento v. Lewis applies when law enforcement shoots but misses the intended target and an unknown occupant of the residence; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit departed from this court’s precedents by denying qualified immunity to petitioner and concluding that respondents were seized when petitioner fired shots but missed; (3) whether, if the Fourth Amendment standard applies, the 6th Circuit properly applied this court’s decision in Graham in concluding that petitioner was not entitled to qualified immunity when he fired shots in self-defense and not to apprehend a suspect; and (4) whether the 6th Circuit erred in determining that it was clearly established by precedent not from this court that respondents had been seized and petitioner used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
22-846 Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
22-846 Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
22-840 K.M. v. Adams Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted before a judicial challenge under the act may be brought is jurisdictional, or rather a claim-processing rule that must be raised as an affirmative defense that may be waived.
22-840 K.M. v. Adams Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted before a judicial challenge under the act may be brought is jurisdictional, or rather a claim-processing rule that must be raised as an affirmative defense that may be waived.
22-828 Pace v. U.S. Whether the “and” in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) means “and,” so that a defendant is safety-valve-eligible so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3-point offense, and (C) a 2- point violent offense, or whether the “and” means “or,” so that a defendant is only safety-valve-eligible if he has none of (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3-point offense, or (C) a 2-point violent offense.
22-827 Herrera v. U.S. Whether, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, petitioners were permitted to bring a facial constitutional challenge to their statute of conviction under the commerce clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution by filing a post-trial motion rather than a pretrial motion.
22-824 Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia v. Belya (1) Whether the First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine and its “ministerial exception” should be understood as an immunity from judicial interference in internal religious leadership disputes covered by the doctrine, or instead as a mere defense against liability; and (2) whether a minister’s defamation claims against his church arising from internal church disciplinary proceedings are barred by the church autonomy doctrine or may instead proceed under the “neutral principles” approach developed for church property disputes.
22-822 Avery Dennison Corp. v. ADASA Inc. Whether a claim for a patent to subdivide a binary serial number and assign the “most significant bits” such that they remain identical across Radio Frequency Identification Device tags constitutes patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
22-821 Chevron Corp. v. City of Hoboken, New Jersey Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.
22-815 Skaar v. McDonough Whether the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals has statutory or inherent authority to include veterans whose individual claims are not yet exhausted in a class seeking injunctive relief, where the court has jurisdiction over a named representative's claim.
22-807 Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (1) Whether the district court erred when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze South Carolina Congressional District 1 and the South Carolina General Assembly’s intent; (2) whether the district court erred in failing to enforce the alternative-map requirement in this circumstantial case; (3) whether the district court erred when it failed to disentangle race from politics; (4) whether the district court erred in finding racial predominance when it never analyzed District 1’s compliance with traditional districting principles; (5) whether the district court clearly erred in finding that the General Assembly used a racial target as a proxy for politics when the record showed only that the General Assembly was aware of race, that race and politics are highly correlated, and that the General Assembly drew districts based on election data; and (6) whether the district court erred in upholding the intentional-discrimination claim when it never even considered whether—let alone found that—District 1 has a discriminatory effect.
22-802 Murco Wall Products v. Galier (1) Whether the “minimum contacts” requirement for specific jurisdiction is satisfied whenever a defendant has made limited sales of products to customers based in the forum state, even when there is no evidence that those customers used or resold those products in that state; and (2) whether a plaintiff ’s cause of action can be said to relate to or arise out of the defendant’s forum contacts in the absence of evidence about which of the defendant’s products allegedly caused the plaintiff’s injury.
22-787 Troy University v. Farmer Whether a state waives its sovereign immunity from private suit in the courts of another state by operating in the state under a corporate registration statute with a sue-and-be-sued clause.
22-785 Jones v. U.S. When, if ever, the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment requires vacatur of a criminal conviction based on the government’s refusal to seek immunity for a defense witness under 18 U.S.C. § 6003.
22-775 Dacostagomez-Aguilar v. Garland (1) Whether a noncitizen may be subject to potential in absentia removal if the noncitizen has never been served a valid notice to appear; and (2) whether a second or subsequent notice of hearing can effectuate a “change or postponement” of the hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(2), and thus expose the noncitizen to in absentia removal, where no notice to appear ever set an initial hearing date in the case.
22-773 Hargett v. Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP When, if ever, a party who obtains a preliminary injunction, but never secures a final merits determination, qualifies as a “prevailing party” eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
22-772 Ultra Petroleum Corporation v. Ad Hoc Committee of OpCo Unsecured Creditors Whether an unwritten “solvent-debtor exception” overrides the Bankruptcy Code’s statutory text and allows creditors in solvent-debtor cases to recover amounts that the code disallows.
22-766 Pinkney v. Berrien County, Michigan Whether petitioner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based on his prosecution, pretrial criminal proceedings, trial, conviction, and incarceration for an act the law does not make criminal should be assessed under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment or under the Fourth Amendment.
22-756 Linthicum v. Smith (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit manifestly departed from this court’s precedent by holding that authority that postdates the defendant’s alleged acts can clearly establish the law for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity; and (2) whether the 5th Circuit defined inmates’ rights to care for serious medical needs at an impermissibly high level of generality.
22-747 Pennington v. West Virginia Whether, when police have an arrest warrant for a person, they can enter a home without probable cause that the person resides there and is present within.
22-741 Faith Bible Chapel Int'l v. Tucker (1) Whether the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” should be understood as an immunity from judicial interference in church employment decisions falling within the exception, or instead as a mere defense against liability; and (2) whether the ministerial exception applies here to bar employment-discrimination claims by a school chaplain who led chapel services, taught in the Bible department, and provided spiritual guidance and counseling to students.
22-738 Mangine v. Withers (1) Whether and under what circumstances relief is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) for federal prisoners challenging errors in their sentences; and (2) whether the erroneous deprivation of petitioner’s statutory right to seek a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) constitutes a miscarriage of justice such that petitioner may obtain relief under Section 2255(e).
22-734 Gomez-Vargas v. Garland Whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
22-730 Rop v. Federal Housing Finance Agency Whether the challenged decisions of the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency should be vacated because the Constitution does not permit the president to designate an acting official to exercise the powers of a principal officer indefinitely without the advice and consent of the Senate.
22-720 Dakota Finance LLC v. Naturaland Trust What the proper test is for determining whether the “diligent prosecution bar” under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii) precludes citizen suits brought under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a).
22-714 Calcutt v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (1) Whether Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corp. and its progeny required the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit to remand the case to the agency after determining that the agency had applied the wrong legal standards; and (2) whether Collins v. Yellen requires separation-of-powers challengers to offer concrete proof of prejudice as a prerequisite to courts resolving separation-of-powers challenges to removal restrictions on the merits.
22-704 Vidal v. Elster Whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.
22-698 Cohen v. Apple Whether state health and safety laws are impliedly preempted, under a purposes-and-objectives theory, by the Federal Communications Commission’s procedural guidelines for reporting how much radiation a cellphone emits.
22-693 Johnson v. Prentice Whether punitively depriving a prisoner in solitary confinement of virtually all exercise for three years notwithstanding the absence of a security justification violates the Eighth Amendment, or whether such a denial only violates the Eighth Amendment if it is imposed in response to an “utterly trivial infraction."
22-687 Goulding v. Securities and Exchange Commission (1) Whether a district court’s award of disgorgement to the Securities and Exchange Commission based on the defendant’s cash withdrawals from a business, without considering whether the withdrawals were tethered to any alleged wrongdoing, satisfies the net-profits calculation required by Liu v. SEC when the business was legitimate and engaged in non-fraudulent activities; (2) whether a district court may shift to a defendant the burden of calculating disgorgement when the SEC contends it cannot make such a calculation; and (3) whether a district court may order that disgorged funds be sent to the Treasury Department when the identities of the potentially aggrieved investors are known to the district court and the SEC has not demonstrated that it would be infeasible to distribute disgorged funds to the investors.
22-685 Wilkerson v. U.S. Whether the government must establish subjective intent to engage in unlawful conduct in order to convict a defendant of health care fraud and violation of the anti-kickback statute.
22-674 Campos-Chaves v. Garland Whether the government provides notice “required under” and “in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information, such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen's request to rescind that order.
22-671 Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd. (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 46 and principles of sound judicial administration preclude a court of appeals from adding a new judge to form a new panel and redecide a case after an original three-judge panel has already decided the case and entered its judgment; and (2) whether 35 U.S.C. § 112 should be interpreted consistent with its plain text as requiring that a patent specification contain a “written description of the invention” in a form that need only be understandable to “any person skilled in the art,” or whether the court of appeals properly read in a heightened requirement that allows it to deem the specification inadequate on de novo review and displaces the perspective of a person skilled in the art.
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.
22-666 Wilkinson v. Garland Whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
22-660 Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
22-652 Lazarenko v. U.S. (1) Whether property can be forfeited as substitute property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) without first determining whether it is “tainted” property that is derived from criminal activity or “untainted" property; and (2) whether untainted property can be forfeited when tainted property is available.
22-639 Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew Whether the Commissioner for Patents’ exercise of the Patent and Trademark Office Director’s authority pursuant to an internal agency delegation violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
22-634 Carson v. Hyland Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 abrogates the Supreme Court’s holdings that payments in common-fund class actions to compensate representative plaintiffs for their personal services are inequitable, “illegal” and “decidedly objectionable."
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.
22-629 Holbrook v. Tennessee Valley Authority Whether federal courts have authority to review the Tennessee Valley Authority’s fidelity to its enabling statute, or whether the Authority’s rate-setting is excepted from all judicial review even when it sets rates in deliberate disregard of Congress’ clearly expressed policy directive.
22-614 Chrisman v. Estate of Seth Michael Zakora Whether a prisoner’s criminal act of voluntarily ingesting an illegal drug banned within the prison can give rise to that prisoner’s federal constitutional claim that under the Eighth Amendment state corrections officials failed to protect him by not preventing the influx of illegal drugs into the prison or failed to supervise other employees to protect him.
22-611 Lindke v. Freed Whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.
22-593 U.S. ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC Whether and when a defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the False Claims Act.
22-583 Greebel v. U.S. Whether lump-sum compensatory payments to an individual, such as those made pursuant to a retirement plan, qualify as “earnings” subject to the Consumer Credit Protection Act’s garnishment limitations.
22-566 Yeatman v. Hyland Whether, or in what circumstances, a court may approve a settlement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) or certify a class under Rule 23(b) when it pays a cy pres award to third parties from the settlement fund.
22-554 St. John v. Jones Whether, or in what circumstances, a court may approve a settlement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) when it pays a substantial cy pres award to third parties from the settlement fund.
22-534 Eagleson v. St. Anthony Hospital (1) Whether spending clause legislation, including 42 U.S.C. § 1396u-2(f), can impliedly create private rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) whether, if so, Section 1936u-2(f)’s requirement that states include a clause requiring timely payment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(37)(A) in their contracts with managed care organizations unambiguously gives states a statutory duty, not just a contractual right, to ensure that those organizations pay providers in accordance with that contract provision, and also unambiguously gives providers a private right to enforce that duty.
22-531 Wofsy v. de Fontbrune (1) Whether, under the first of the four copyright fair-use factors, a scholarly book that is “offered for sale” for use in academic and related settings is a commercial or non-commercial work; (2) whether, for purposes of the second fair-use factor, a work’s level of creativity is a distinct inquiry from whether that work is sufficiently original to be copyrightable, or whether a work that meets the threshold for copyrightability is automatically considered creative; and (3) whether, where a representational photograph is reproduced in its entirety because a partial photograph would not be a useful depiction of its subject, the third fair-use factor is neutral or weighs against fair use.
22-524 Shell Oil Products Company LLC v. Rhode Island Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.
22-523 Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1442 precludes removal by federal officers and persons acting under them unless the removing defendant’s colorable federal defense arises out of the defendant’s federal duty; and (2) whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.
22-517 Dickenson v. Johnson (1) Whether district courts may be required to use the inherently subjective and effectively unreviewable factors to determine common-fund fee awards set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. despite the court’s rejection of the that approach in Perdue v. Kenny; (2) whether district courts may be required to calculate common-fund attorney’s fees only as a percentage of the fund, or may instead award fees based on the attorney’s lodestar; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit may mandate that district courts adopt a 25% “benchmark” for percent-of-fund attorney’s fee awards.
22-510 Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, Missouri Whether, when officers put a handcuffed and shackled person face-down on the floor and pushed into his back until he died, they are they entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because the person struggled to breathe before dying.
22-502 Spring Valley Produce v. Forrest Whether a debtor in bankruptcy may discharge liability for unlawfully violating a nonsegregated statutory trust.
22-495 Chevron Corp. v. San Mateo County, California Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.
22-495 Chevron Corp. v. San Mateo County, California Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.
22-490 Chestnut v. Allen Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) limitations and needlessly overturned a state death sentence on an insubstantial premise that respondent’s mental health evidence was not afforded “meaningful consideration and effect” when the judge stated at sentencing that he had considered all the mental health evidence but did not explicitly reference respondent’s eating disorder.
22-488 Hemphill v. New York Whether the improper admission of the out-of-court statement by the alternative suspect in Hemphill v. New York was “so unimportant and insignificant” as to be harmless under Chapman v. California.
22-481 Moore v. U.S. Whether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home and curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search.
22-436 He v. Garland (1) Whether courts of appeals review de novo - as a question of law - or for substantial evidence - as a question of fact - a Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that established facts do not rise to the level of persecution; and (2) whether being prohibited by government officials from freely and openly practicing one's religion constitutes persecution as a matter of law.
22-412 Harness v. Watson Whether any amendment to a law originally adopted for an impermissible racially discriminatory purpose, no matter how minor the amendment and no matter the historical context, cleanses the law of its racist origins for 14th Amendment purposes unless the party challenging the law can prove that the amendment itself was motivated by racial discrimination.
22-389 Johnson v. Dickenson Whether incentive payments in class-action settlements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 are per se unlawful under the rule from Trustees v. Greenough, or sometimes permissible subject to judicial oversight.
22-361 BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1) Whether federal common law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under state law.
22-324 O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier Whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social-media account, when the official uses the account to feature their job and communicate about job-related matters with the public, but does not do so pursuant to any governmental authority or duty.
22-321 Slockish v. Department of Transportation Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s mootness ruling warrants summary reversal where the panel clearly misapprehended governing law on mootness and on the authority of federal courts to order equitable relief affecting nonparties.
21-1550 Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County (1) Whether federal common law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under state law. CVSG: 3/16/2023

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
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.
22-555 NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech—or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.
22-465 Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Int'l Paper Company Whether a bare declaratory judgment that determines liability but imposes no “costs” and awards no “damages” triggers the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act’s three-year statute of limitations for an “action for contribution for any response costs or damages.”
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.
22-393 NetChoice, LLC v. Moody Whether Florida Senate Bill 7072 in its entirety, and its compelled disclosure provisions in particular, comply with the First Amendment.
22-277 Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (1) Whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring that social-media companies host third-party communications, and from regulating the time, place, and manner in which they do so; and (2) whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring social-media companies to notify and provide an explanation to their users when they censor the user’s speech.
22-238 Charter Day School v. Peltier Whether a private entity that contracts with the state to operate a charter school engages in state action when it formulates a policy without coercion or encouragement by the government.
22-231 Davis v. Legal Services Alabama Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of Title VII prohibit discrimination as to all “terms,” “conditions,” or “privileges” of employment, or are limited to “significant” discriminatory employer actions only.
22-203 Apple v. California Institute of Technology Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erroneously extended inter partes review estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) to all grounds that reasonably could have been raised in the petition filed before an inter partes review is instituted, even though the text of the statute applies estoppel only to grounds that “reasonably could have [been] raised during that inter partes review.”
22-193 Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination as to all “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” or whether its reach is limited to discriminatory employer conduct that courts determine causes materially significant disadvantages for employees.
22-121 ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC Whether the Copyright Act’s preemption clause allows a business to invoke traditional state-law contract remedies to enforce a promise not to copy and use its content.
22-115 Buckner v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. (1) Whether the equitable right to compel a coal company covered by the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 to maintain an individual employer plan is a dischargeable “claim” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(B); and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in holding that a covered company’s obligations under the Coal Act arose, once and for all time, when the act became law, such that a bankruptcy discharge relieves a company from its statutory obligations to maintain a plan and pay Coal Act premiums incurred after bankruptcy.
22-37 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC Whether a generic drug manufacturer's FDA-approved label that carves out all of the language the brand manufacturer has identified as covering its patented uses can be held liable on a theory that its label still intentionally encourages infringement of those carved-out uses.
22-22 Tropp v. Travel Sentry Whether claims in patents for dual-access airline luggage locks that recite physical rather than computer-processing steps are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as interpreted in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.
21-1448 Wells v. McCallister Whether a homestead exemption to which a debtor is entitled on the date he files for bankruptcy can vanish if the debtor sells his homestead during the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings and does not reinvest the proceeds in another homestead.
21-1281 Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy (1) What the appropriate standard is for determining whether a patent claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under step one of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101; (2) whether patent eligibility (at each step of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework) is a question of law for the court based on the scope of the claims or a question of fact for the jury based on the state of art at the time of the patent; and (3) whether it is proper to apply 35 U.S.C. § 112 considerations to determine whether a patent claims eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
21-867 Midwest Air Traffic Control Service v. Badilla Whether state-law tort claims that arise out of the uniquely federal sphere of the military’s combat operations are preempted by the interests embodied in the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception.