Breaking News

Petitions We’re Watching

You can see all paid petitions we’re following below, organized by petitions relisted for the next conference, those scheduled for initial consideration at the next conference, other featured petitions, and finally, petitions in which the court has called for the views of the solicitor general.

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-167 Hamm v. Smith (1) Whether Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas mandate that courts deem the standard of “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” for determining intellectual disability in Atkins v. Virginia satisfied when an offender’s lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hall and Moore, or at least clarify that they permit courts to consider multiple IQ scores and the probability that an offender’s IQ does not fall at the bottom of the lowest IQ score’s error range.
23-1067 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.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-1094 AT&T Services v. Bugielski Whether a fiduciary to an employee benefit plan causes the plan to engage in a prohibited transaction under Section 406(a)(1)(C) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by entering a routine, arm’s-length agreement for plan services.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-1155 Villareal v. Alaniz (1) Whether it obviously violates the First Amendment to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer; and (2) whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment, or instead shields those officials.
23-1096 Davis v. Colorado Whether, once counsel has been appointed for an indigent defendant, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant the same right to continued representation by that counsel as is enjoyed by defendants affluent enough to retain counsel.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
24-97 Meadows v. Georgia Whether the right to remove an action against “any officer … for or relating to any act under color of such office,” 28 U.S.C. §1442(a)(1), evaporates when the officer leaves federal office.
24-57 Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois Whether the court should overrule Hill v. Colorado.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-1213 Mulready v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (1) Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts state laws that regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) by preventing them from cutting off rural patients’ access, steering patients to PBM-favored pharmacies, excluding pharmacies willing to accept their terms from preferred networks, and overriding state discipline of pharmacists; and (2) whether Medicare Part D preempts state laws that limit the conditions PBMs may place on pharmacies’ participation in their preferred networks.
23-1209 M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires a multiemployer pension plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions to which its actuary subscribed at the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after the end of the year.
23-1197 Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
23-969 Walen v. Burgum (1) Whether the district court erred by applying the incorrect legal standard when deciding that the North Dakota legislature had good reasons and a strong basis to believe two majority-Native-American subdistricts were required by the Voting Rights Act; (2) whether the district court erred by improperly weighing the evidence and granting inferences in favor of the moving party at summary judgment instead of setting the case for trial; and (3) whether the district court erred when it found that the legislature’s attempted compliance with Section 2 of the VRA can justify racial sorting of voters into districts.
23-952 Shell PLC v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (1) Whether claims seeking damages for the effects of interstate and international emissions on the global climate are beyond the limits of state law and thus preempted under the federal Constitution; and (2) whether the Clean Air Act preempts state-law claims predicated on damaging interstate emissions.
23-947 Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.
23-914 Zilka v. City of Philadelphia Tax Review Board Whether the commerce clause requires states to consider a taxpayer’s burden in light of the state tax scheme as a whole when crediting a taxpayer’s out-of-state tax liability, or permits states to credit out-of-state state and local tax liabilities as discrete tax burdens.
22O158 Alabama v. California Whether the Supreme Court should enjoin states from seeking to impose liability or obtain equitable relief premised on either emissions by or in other states, or the promotion, use and/or sale of traditional energy products in or to those other states.