| 22o143 |
Mississippi v. Tennessee |
(1) Whether the Court will grant Mississippi leave to file an original action to seek relief from respondents’ use of a pumping operation to take approximately 252 billion gallons of high-quality groundwater; (2) whether Mississippi has sole sovereign authority over and control of groundwater naturally stored within its borders, including in sandstone within Mississippi’s borders; and (3) whether Mississippi is entitled to damages, injunctive, and other equitable relief for the Mississippi intrastate groundwater intentionally and forcibly taken by respondents. CVSG: 5/12/2015. |
| 22O154 |
New Hampshire v. Massachusetts |
Whether Massachusetts' tax rule — which subjects nonresident earned income received
for services performed outside Massachusetts to the state’s income tax — is unconstitutional confiscation. |
| 20A169 |
Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services |
Whether the Supreme Court should vacate the stay, pending appeal, of a judgment that would end the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's nationwide moratorium on evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic because the moratorium is not authorized by the Public Health Service Act of 1944. |
| 20-1709 |
Pon v. U.S. |
Whether an appellate court reviewing a cold criminal trial record may determine that an error at trial was harmless by applying an “overwhelming evidence of guilt” test that considers only the potential effect of the error on the government’s case and not on the defense. |
| 20-1704 |
Simmons v. U.S. |
Whether a court can summarily dismiss a pro se habeas petition as untimely for failure to adequately allege a causal connection when petitioner explains how a government impediment “prevented” him from filing timely but does not allege with specificity how he discovered and attempted to remedy that impediment. |
| 20-1698 |
Palade v. Board of Trustees University of Arkansas System |
Whether the lower courts erred in holding that Petitioners lacked standing to seek declaratory relief concerning the retroactive application of newly revised policies concerning the grounds for dismissal and academic discipline to faculty who are on the tenure-track and faculty who have already earned tenure under prior Board of Trustees policies. |
| 20-1693 |
Osby v. U.S. |
Whether basing a criminal defendant’s sentence on charges of which the jury acquitted him violates the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. |
| 20-1678 |
Crowe v. Oregon State Bar |
Whether the statute that compels attorneys to subsidize Oregon State Bar’s political and ideological speech is subject to “exacting” scrutiny. |
| 20-1676 |
Public Watchdogs v. Southern California Edison Company |
Whether the Hobbs Act deprives a federal district court of subject matter jurisdiction over state law and Price-Anderson Act claims asserted by a private actor against private party Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees, on the ground such claims are “ancillary or incidental to” an NRC final order. |
| 20-1673 |
Nettles v. Midland Funding, LLC |
(1) Whether, under Spokeo, it is sufficient for standing simply to allege a violation of the procedural rights created by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as six circuits have held, or must a plaintiff also always allege an additional injury beyond such a violation, as five circuits (including the 7th in this case) have held; and (2) whether some additional injury is required for standing under the Act, whether it is sufficient to allege mental distress or lost time dealing with a violation of the Act, as the 4th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits have held, or whether something more than mental distress or lost time is required, as the 7th (in this case) and 9th Circuits have held. |
| 20-1668 |
City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma v. Bond |
(1) Whether use of force that is reasonable at the moment it is employed can nonetheless violate the Fourth Amendment if the officers recklessly or deliberately created the need to use force; and (2) whether it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that advancing toward an intoxicated individual wielding a deadly weapon inside a garage was a “reckless” act that would render unconstitutional any subsequent use of lethal force in response to a threat to officer safety. |
| 20-1648 |
Fischer v. Forrest |
(1) Whether the name of the author of a copyrighted work is copyright management information or whether it must also be apparent from context that the name is copyright-related; and (2) whether the name of the copyright owner of a copyrighted work is copyright management information or whether it must also be apparent from context that the name is copyright-related. |
| 20-1643 |
Baisley v. Int'l Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers |
Whether opt-out procedures for collecting union fees for ideological and political activities violate the First Amendment or the Railway Labor Act. |
| 20-1641 |
Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita |
(1) Whether a group health plan that provides uniform reimbursement of all dialysis treatments observe the prohibition provided by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that group health plans may not “take into account” the fact that a plan participant with end stage renal disease is eligible for Medicare benefits; (2) whether a plan that provides the same dialysis benefits to all plan participants, and reimburses dialysis providers uniformly regardless of whether the patient has end stage renal disease, observe the prohibition under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that a group health plan also may not “differentiate” between individuals with end stage renal disease and others “in the benefits it provides”; and (3) whether the Medicare Secondary Payer Act is a coordination-of-benefits measure designed to protect Medicare, not an antidiscrimination law designed to protect certain providers from alleged disparate impact of uniform treatment. |
| 20-1614 |
Leontaritis v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, if a jury is instructed to “determine” a fact by indicating a “unanimous finding beyond a reasonable doubt” and does so, the resulting verdict indicates a finding beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to a mere failure to find; and (2) whether, if a jury verdict finds a fact beyond a reasonable doubt, a district court’s sentencing decision must accept the jury’s determination or instead may base the sentence on its own independent finding that contradicts the jury’s. |
| 20-1611 |
Healthcare Distribution Alliance v. James |
Whether the New York Opioid Stewardship Act’s surcharge is a “tax” within the meaning of the Tax Injunction Act, despite having features that other circuits repeatedly have held indicative of a punitive fee. |
| 20-1598 |
Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins |
(1) Whether a recording law, which makes it a felony for individuals to secretly record under any circumstances, is not facially overbroad under the First Amendment; and (2) whether a party challenging a speech suppressive law has the burden to precisely articulate every type of contemplated speech activity to satisfy ripeness for as-applied challenges. |
| 20-1596 |
Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm PLLC v. U.S. |
Whether documents that reflect the client’s identity are protected by the attorney-client privilege when the Government is aware of a citizen’s confidential communication with legal counsel or the motive for seeking advice but is unaware of the citizen’s identity. |
| 20-1587 |
Louisiana v. Hill |
(1) Whether a state may require convicted sex offenders to obtain and carry a state identification bearing the words “sex offender” without facially violating the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech; and (2) whether a convicted sex offender has a First Amendment right not to be prosecuted for fraudulently altering a state identification card after scratching off a statutorily required sex offender designation. |
| 20-1573 |
Viking River Cruises v. Moriana |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires
enforcement of a bilateral arbitration agreement
providing that an employee cannot raise
representative claims, including under the California Private Attorneys General Act. |
| 20-1570 |
HRB Tax Group v. Snarr |
Whether California’s
public-policy rule declining to enforce agreements for
individualized arbitration whenever a plaintiff seeks
a public injunction is preempted by the Federal
Arbitration Act. |
| 20-1566 |
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation |
Whether a federal court hearing state law claims brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs the claims at issue, or whether it may apply federal common law. |
| 20-1562 |
Strain v. Regalado |
Whether a pretrial detainee can prevail against a
jail official who disregarded an obvious risk of serious
harm or whether the pretrial detainee must prove
that the official subjectively knew of and disregarded
a serious risk of harm. |
| 20-1541 |
Pivotal Software v. Tran |
Whether the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act’s discovery-stay
provision applies to a private action under the
Securities Act of 1933 in state or federal court, or solely to a
private action in federal court. |
| 20-1539 |
Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s
decisions in Graham v. Connor and Plumhoff v. Rickard in denying qualified immunity to Daniel Rivas-Villegas based upon the absence of a constitutional violation, by concluding that pushing a
suspect down with a foot and briefly placing a
knee against the back of a prone, armed suspect while handcuffing him, could constitute
excessive force; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s
decision in Kisela v. Hughes and numerous
other cases by denying qualified immunity
even though two judges concluded the use of
force was reasonable, and notwithstanding
the absence of clearly established law imposing liability under circumstances closely analogous to those confronting Rivas-Villegas. |
| 20-1531 |
North American Coal Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), which authorizes the
Environmental Protection Agency to impose standards “for any existing source”
based on limits “achievable through the application of
the best system of emission reduction” that has been
“adequately demonstrated,” grants the EPA authority
not only to impose standards based on technology and
methods that can be applied at and achieved by that
existing source, but also allows the agency to develop
industry-wide systems like cap-and-trade regimes. |
| 20-1530 |
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether, in 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the
Clean Air Act, Congress constitutionally authorized the
Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant
rules — including those capable of reshaping the nation’s
electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually
any sector of the economy — without any limits on what the
agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair
impacts and energy requirements. |
| 20-1507 |
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Grewal |
(1) Whether a blanket, retrospective and
confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding
citizens from possessing magazines in common use
violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without
compensation of property that was lawfully acquired
and long possessed without incident violates the
takings clause. |
| 20-1505 |
Merchant v. Mayorkas |
Whether the Fourth Amendment requires that
searches of electronic devices at the U.S. border be
conducted pursuant to a warrant based on probable
cause, or at least pursuant to an officer’s
determination of reasonable suspicion that the device
contains digital contraband. |
| 20-1501 |
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell |
(1) Whether New York’s regulation
mandating that employer health insurance plans
cover abortions, which burdens a subset
of religious organizations by forcing them to cover
abortions, is “neutral” and “generally applicable” under
Employment Division v. Smith and
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of
Hialeah; (2) whether New York’s mandate interferes with the
autonomy of religious entities, in violation of the
religion clauses of the First Amendment; and (3) whether — if, under the rule announced in Smith, the free
exercise clause of the First Amendment allows states
to demand that religious entities opposing abortions
subsidize them — Smith should be overruled. |
| 20-1499 |
American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, like other Article III courts,
has jurisdiction to consider a motion asserting that
the First Amendment provides a qualified public right
of access to the court’s significant opinions, and
whether the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has jurisdiction to consider an
appeal from the denial of such a motion; and (2) whether the First Amendment provides a
qualified right of public access to the FISC’s
significant opinions. |
| 20-1486 |
Empire Health Foundation v. Becerra |
(1) Whether agencies must accurately include
key facts and data in notices of proposed rulemaking in order to satisfy the
requirements of fair notice and the
opportunity for the public to meaningfully
comment; and (2) whether, whenever a proposal presents a
binary choice of policies, the adoption of one
of those policies will always be a “logical
outgrowth” of the proposal that can excuse
any failure to comply with notice-and-comment obligations. |
| 20-1483 |
Pilevsky v. Sutton 58 Associates LLC |
Whether the federal Bankruptcy Code preempts
state-law tort claims that are premised on an alleged
misuse of bankruptcy proceedings or that seek to
impose liability based on the very fact of bankruptcy. |
| 20-1479 |
Houston v. U.S. |
Whether a sentencing court must consider
applicable sentencing factors codified in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) when deciding whether to impose a reduced
sentence under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. |
| 20-1474 |
Colone v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County |
(1) Whether federal statutes must contain
express privilege language before courts
may decide that Congress intended the
statute to create an evidentiary privilege
that abrogates the legislated subpoena
and discovery rules, and impedes judicial
truth-seeking, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th, 10th and
11th Circuits have ruled, or whether
courts may read ambiguous silence in
statutory text to impliedly create such a
privilege, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
3rd and 5th Circuits, and the lower
courts in this case, have ruled; and (2) whether the Stored Communications
Act yields to judicial process, as the 9th Circuit
has presumed, or whether the act impliedly creates a novel, unqualified evidentiary privilege for the Internet that
bars judicial subpoenas requested by
non-governmental litigants, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, the Ohio State Supreme
Court, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals and the lower courts in this
case have ruled. |
| 20-1472 |
Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
Whether the 30-day time limit to file a petition for
review in the Tax Court of a notice of determination
from the commissioner of internal revenue in 26
U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) is a
jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule
subject to equitable tolling. |
| 20-1462 |
Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC v. Gulf LNG Energy, LLC |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court
to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement delegating
all questions, including questions of arbitrability, to an
arbitrator when a party contends that the claim sought
to be arbitrated represents a “collateral attack” on a prior
arbitration award. |
| 20-1459 |
U.S. v. Taylor |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A)’s definition of “crime
of violence” excludes attempted Hobbs Act robbery, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). |
| 20-1453 |
Cal Cartage Transportation Express, LLC v. California |
Whether the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act, which expressly preempts state
laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor
carrier,” preempts state
worker-classification laws that have an effect on a
motor carrier’s prices and services by discouraging the
use of independent contractors. |
| 20-1434 |
Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services |
Whether the 14th Amendment bars states
from prohibiting abortions that are sought solely
because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. |
| 20-1426 |
Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. |
Whether a state statute that expressly caps punitive
damages at two times compensatory damages
satisfies the notice requirement of the due process
clause such that a punitive damages award that
complies with the statute is constitutionally
sound under the due process clause. |
| 20-1419 |
Russell v. New Jersey |
(1) Whether the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry arms outside of the
home for self-defense; and (2) whether the government may deny law-abiding citizens their exercise of the right
to carry a handgun outside of their homes
by conditioning the exercise of the right
on showings of need. |
| 20-1410 |
Ruan v. U.S. |
Whether a physician alleged to have
prescribed controlled substances outside the usual
course of professional practice may be convicted of unlawful
distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good
faith, he “reasonably believed” or “subjectively
intended” that his prescriptions fall within that
course of professional practice. |
| 20-1391 |
Sportswear Inc. v. Savannah College of Art and Design Inc. |
(1) Whether the scope of a federally-registered service
mark extends to unrelated goods bearing that
service mark; and (2) whether the defendant’s copying of a mark, without
proof of consumer confusion as to the source of
the parties’ goods or services, establishes
trademark infringement merely because
consumers recognize the mark. |
| 20-1389 |
Savage v. U.S. |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit properly held — in conflict with decades of federal practice endorsing flexible procedures to assemble a complete record on appeal — that an appellant seeking a complete appellate
record must overcome procedural impediments lacking any basis in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10’s text: namely, that when an appellant lacks any “means” to “prepare
a statement of” untranscribed “proceedings” under
Rule 10(c), the district court has no obligation to assist in reconstructing those proceedings unless the appellant first files a declaration “saying he does not remember what happened,” and that when an appellant wishes to review
and supplement the record with undocketed trial correspondence in the district court’s possession, he must
first show how the correspondence would “give rise to
‘any difference[s]’ about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court.” |
| 20-1379 |
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Center for Investigative Reporting |
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
overruled or abrogated the court’s holding in Lehman v. City of
Shaker Heights that transit authorities have the discretion to
categorically prohibit political advertisements. |
| 20-1375 |
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. |
Whether, when a court permits an unemancipated minor to
have an abortion, the state may require that her parents be notified before the abortion occurs except
where such notice would contravene her best interests. |
| 20-1374 |
CVS Pharmacy Inc. v. Doe |
(1) Whether Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 — and
by extension Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act, which incorporates the “enforcement mechanisms” of other federal antidiscrimination statutes — provides a disparate-impact cause
of action for plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination; and (2) whether, if Section 504 and the ACA create disparate-impact claims, such claims extend to the facially
neutral terms and conditions of health insurance plans. |
| 20-1357 |
Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado v. Exby-Stolley |
Whether a plaintiff asserting a failure-to-accommodate claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 must show that the employer’s failure to make the requested accommodation
affected the “terms, conditions, [or] privileges of employment" — that is, whether the employee must
show that the failure to accommodate amounted to an
adverse employment action. |
| 20-1354 |
City of Portland, Oregon v. Federal Communications Commission |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in upholding the Federal Communications Commission’s
interpretation of “effect of prohibiting” in light of its
plain meaning, lack of a limiting standard and National Cable & Telecommunications Association v.
Brand X Internet Services; and (2) whether the divided 9th Circuit erred in affirming the
FCC’s interpretation of 47 U.S.C.
§ 253 to mandate access,
at cost, to public property for private commercial use. |
| 20-1349 |
Threatt v. Farrell |
Whether, and to what degree, a district court must consider counsel’s lodestar in awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). |
| 20-1334 |
Boardman v. Inslee |
Whether a law that skews the debate over the
value of public-sector unions and undermines public-sector employees’ opt-out rights by giving incumbent
unions exclusive access to information necessary to
communicate with public-sector employees is
consistent with the First Amendment. |
| 20-1313 |
Shivkov v. Artex Risk Solutions Inc. |
(1) Whether an agreement that specifies arbitration before the American Arbitration Association as the default dispute-resolution
method also must specifically mention the AAA rules to
avoid being considered ambiguous about whether
the parties intended to apply the AAA rules; and (2) whether the availability of class arbitration is a matter for
an arbitrator to decide, or for a court to decide. |
| 20-1312 |
Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation |
Whether, for purposes of calculating additional payment for hospitals that serve a “significantly disproportionate number of low-income patients,” the secretary of health and human services has permissibly included in a
hospital’s Medicare fraction all of the hospital’s patient
days of individuals who satisfy the requirements to be entitled to Medicare Part A benefits, regardless of whether
Medicare paid the hospital for those particular days. |
| 20-1306 |
Walker v. Mississippi |
(1) Whether the Mississippi Supreme Court failed to adhere to the Supreme Court’s Sixth
Amendment jurisprudence requiring counsel in a capital case to conduct a thorough
investigation of their client’s background and history, and that purported “tactical”
decisions are only reasonable to the extent they are based on such an investigation; and (2) whether Alan Walker was denied the effective assistance of counsel in the
preparation and presentation of mitigation at his capital trial. |
| 20-1287 |
Recovery Innovations Inc. v. Rawson |
Whether through the provision of mental health
services, a private, nonprofit hospital and private
health care providers become state actors, subject to
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when they provide mental health services to a person who was deemed to be
“gravely disabled” and to “present[] a likelihood of serious harm to others” under the state’s involuntary
commitment law. |
| 20-1279 |
Castañon v. U.S. |
Whether the three-judge district court erred by
holding that residents of the District of Columbia are
not entitled to voting representation in the House of
Representatives because they do not live in a “State,”
even though (1) Americans living overseas and
residents of “federal enclaves” have voting
representation in Congress despite not being State
residents, (2) Congress has concluded that it may
extend voting rights to District residents under the
“District Clause” of the Constitution, Article I, Section
17, Clause 8, and (3) the Supreme Court has held that the right
to vote is the most fundamental of all rights because
it is preservative of all other rights. |
| 20-1263 |
Gallardo v. Marstiller |
Whether the federal Medicaid Act provides for a
state Medicaid program to recover reimbursement
for Medicaid’s payment of a beneficiary’s past
medical expenses by taking funds from the portion of
the beneficiary’s tort recovery that compensates for
future medical expenses. |
| 20-1246 |
Valentine v. Phillips |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) when it
failed to apply the proper, heightened and deferential
standard to the district court’s expert witness credibility
determination; and (2) whether the 6th Circuit usurped the district court’s expert witness
gatekeeping function when it held that the district court
should have credited the testimony of Johnny Phillips’s expert — and
granted Phillips’s petition — simply because that testimony
was not blatantly self-serving or dishonest. |
| 20-1203 |
Jooce v. Food and Drug Administration |
(1) Whether a regulation may be ratified if the
appointments clause prohibited the purported
agent’s exercise of rulemaking authority; and (2) whether, if so, the ratification must comply with the
constraints that would normally govern an officer’s
rulemaking, such as the Administrative Procedure
Act’s “reasoned decision-making” requirement. |
| 20-1163 |
Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm |
Whether Title IX or the equal protection clause
requires schools to let transgender students use multi-user restrooms designated for the opposite biological
sex, even when single-user restrooms are available for
all students regardless of gender identity. |
| 20-1141 |
Doe Company v. U.S. |
(1) Whether an appealing party’s substantial interest in a disclosure order directing a disinterested
third party to produce documents provides appellate
jurisdiction under Perlman v. United States, when that interest will be lost absent immediate appellate review; and (2) whether a federal court lacks specific personal
jurisdiction to enforce a subpoena that is directed to a
foreign recipient and demands the production of documents that are unrelated to the recipient’s contacts
with the United States. |
| 20-1129 |
Flynn v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the due process clause of the United
States Constitution, as discussed in McCarthy v.
United States and more recent
decisions of the Supreme Court, requires discussion in open
court of the elements of an 18 U.S.C. § 371 conspiracy
to defraud the Internal Revenue Service (Klein
Conspiracy) offense to advise the defendant of the
nature of the charges against him before a guilty plea
is accepted; (2) whether the requirement for a nexus between
a particular administrative proceeding and a
taxpayer’s conduct is necessary to save the
constitutionality of a conviction under an 18 U.S.C. §
371 conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue
Service (Klein Conspiracy) after the Supreme Court’s decision
in Marinello v. United States; and (3) whether a criminal defendant is entitled to a
jury trial to determine the amount of restitution under
either the Sixth or Seventh Amendments to the
United States Constitution. |
| 20-1088 |
Carson v. Makin |
Whether a state violates the religion clauses or equal
protection clause of the United States Constitution
by prohibiting students participating in an otherwise
generally available student-aid program from choosing
to use their aid to attend schools that provide religious,
or “sectarian,” instruction. |
| 20-1057 |
Oracle America Inc. v. U.S. |
(1) Whether a bid protest that establishes a violation of
federal law may be denied for “harmless error” based on a
rationale not present in the administrative record; and (2) whether, in resolving a bid protest that establishes a
violation of the criminal conflict-of-interest statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can enforce the contract based on
deference to an agency’s assessment that the criminal violation
did not taint the procurement. |
| 20-1026 |
Eagle Trust Fund v. U.S. Postal Service |
(1) Whether the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 impliedly bars non-Administrative Procedure Act
review, including claims of arbitrary-and-capricious
conduct or failure to follow the U.S. Postal Service’s own rules; and (2) whether the PRA violates Article III as
applied to bar judicial review of USPS adjudications. |
| 20-1006 |
City of Hayward, California v. Stoddard-Nunez |
(1) Whether an accelerating fleeing driver’s sudden
turn deprives a threatened shooting officer of
qualified immunity; and (2) whether an unintended victim-passenger of a
fleeing vehicle is “seized” for purposes of the Fourth
Amendment. |
| 20-685 |
Biden v. Sierra Club |
(1) Whether the Sierra Club has a cognizable cause of
action to obtain review of the secretary of defense’s compliance
with 10 U.S.C. § 2808 in reprioritizing appropriated but unobligated funds for the military construction projects involving border
barriers being authorized; and (2) whether the secretary exceeded his statutory authority under Section 2808 in reprioritizing appropriated funds for the military construction projects following the president’s declaration of a national emergency requiring the use of the armed forces at the southern border. |
| 20-257 |
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. v. Scott |
Whether a district court may consider factors other
than the presence of a single material question of law or
fact common to a group of employees when assessing
whether the employees are “similarly situated” for purposes of the collective-action provision of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. |
| 19-1401 |
Hughes v. Northwestern University |
Whether allegations that a defined-contribution
retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees
that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment products or services are sufficient
to state a claim against plan fiduciaries for breach
of the duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C.
§ 1104(a)(1)(B). |
