23-167 |
Hamm v. Smith |
(1) Whether Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas mandate that courts deem the standard of “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” for determining intellectual disability in Atkins v. Virginia satisfied when an offender’s lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hall and Moore, or at least clarify that they permit courts to consider multiple IQ scores and the probability that an offender’s IQ does not fall at the bottom of the lowest IQ score’s error range. |
23-1067 |
Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states. |
23-1068 |
PacifiCorp v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s disapproval of a state implementation plan may only be challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) if the agency packages that disapproval with disapprovals of other states’ plans and purports to use a consistent method in evaluating the state-specific determinations in those plans. |
23-1137 |
Boston Parent Coalition for Academic Excellence Corp. v. The School Committee for the City of Boston |
Whether an equal protection challenge to facially race-neutral admission criteria is barred simply because members of the racial groups targeted for decline still receive a balanced share of admissions offers commensurate with their share of the applicant pool. |
23-1148 |
G-Max Management v. New York |
(1) Whether New York’s rent-regulation laws, and in particular its new restrictions on owner reclamation and condo/co-op conversions, effect physical takings; and (2) whether this court should overrule Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, or at least clarify the standards for determining when a regulatory taking occurs. |
23-1229 |
Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC |
Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.” |
23-1230 |
Growth Energy v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC |
Whether an action by the Environmental Protection Agency is “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect” for purposes of laying venue under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) when the action uses a common legal requirement and a general factual finding to resolve all pending “small refinery” petitions for exemption from annual obligations under the Renewable Fuel Program irrespective of the petitioning refineries’ location. |
23-1275 |
Kerr v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic |
(1) Whether the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider; and (2) what the scope of a Medicaid beneficiary’s alleged right is to choose a provider that a state has deemed disqualified. |
23-1301 |
Brinkmann v. Town of Southold, New York |
Whether the Fifth Amendment's takings clause is violated when property is taken for a public amenity as pretext for defeating an owner’s plans for another use. |
23-1323 |
Consumers’ Research v. Consumer Product Safety Commission |
Whether the for-cause restriction on the president’s authority to remove commissioners of the Consumer Product Safety Commission violates the separation of powers. |
23-6573 |
Andrew v. White |
(1) Whether clearly established federal law as determined by this court forbids the prosecution’s use of a woman’s plainly irrelevant sexual history, gender presentation, and role as a mother and wife to assess guilt and punishment; and (2) whether this court should summarily reverse in light of cumulative effect of the errors in this case at guilt and sentencing, including the introduction of a custodial statement made without the warnings Miranda v. Arizona requires. |
23-7150 |
Gordon v. Massachusetts |
(1) Whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute forensic
expert conveying testimonial statements of a non-testifying forensic analyst on the
grounds that the testifying expert offers a purportedly “independent opinion;” and (2) whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel precludes a criminal
defendant’s trial counsel from suggesting to a jury that trial counsel does not
believe the testimony of the defendant. |
23-7483 |
Esteras v. U.S. |
Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release. |
23-7517 |
Wilson v. Hawaii |
Whether the test articulated in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen determines when a state's criminal prosecution for
carrying a handgun without a license violates the Second Amendment. |