24-538 |
Chisesi v. Hunady |
(1) Whether, on a defendant’s interlocutory appeal
asserting qualified immunity, a court of appeals can
decide whether any genuine factual disputes exist; and (2) whether qualified immunity should be abrogated or restricted to its common-law origins. |
24-524 |
Lighting Defense Group v. SnapRays |
Whether a defendant subjects itself to personal jurisdiction anywhere a plaintiff operates simply because the defendant knows its out-of-forum conduct “would necessarily affect marketing, sales, and other activities” within the forum, even though the defendant has no contacts with the plaintiff or the forum whatsoever. |
24-517 |
Shockley v. Vandergriff |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in denying petitioner’s application, over dissent, to appeal the denial of his Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims. |
24-513 |
Carter v. Stewart |
(1) Whether a prospective juror who alleges they were
struck as the result of a policy, custom or usage
of racial discrimination have a cause of action
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) if so, whether such claims must be adjudicated in the same manner as other Section 1983 lawsuits, including the submission of genuine issues of material fact to
a jury. |
24-512 |
Korban v. Watson Memorial Spiritual Temple of Christ |
Whether a prior federal judgment precludes state-law claims in a subsequent state- or federal-court action that arise from a common core of facts and that could have been, but were not, raised in the prior
federal action. |
24-510 |
Abbey v. U.S. |
Whether petitioners’ negligence claims “aris[e] out of ... misrepresentation,” and thus are barred by section 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, even though petitioners did not personally rely on an alleged misrepresentation. |
24-504 |
Hoskins v. Withers |
(1) Whether qualified immunity shields government
officials from liability even in cases where they retaliate
against a person for exercising a clearly established
constitutional right; and (2) whether, even assuming a plaintiff must show that
retaliatory conduct is clearly unlawful, qualified immunity
should have been denied because the retaliatory conduct
here was clearly unlawful. |
24-495 |
Konan v. U.S. Postal Service |
(1) Whether federal employees can be liable under the Ku Klux Klan Act; and (2) whether or under what circumstances the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine — which holds that employees of the same entity cannot be liable for conspiracy — applies to the act. |
24-489 |
Gulf Coast Racing, LLC v. Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority |
(1) Whether Congress can empower a purportedly
private nonprofit entity to regulate an entire industry
nationwide through rulemaking, adjudication and enforcement powers, and therefore to exercise significant
authority pursuant to the laws of the United States,
without proper appointments under the appointments
clause of the Constitution; and (2) whether statutorily empowering a private nonprofit corporation to regulate an entire industry nationwide through rulemaking, adjudication and enforcement violates the private nondelegation doctrine. |
24-482 |
Ellingburg v. U.S. |
Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory
Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of
the Constitution's ex post facto clause. |
24-475 |
Braidwood Management v. Becerra |
Whether the Affordable Care Act violates the nondelegation doctrine by empowering agencies to unilaterally decree the preventive care that private health insurers must cover, while failing to provide an “intelligible principle” to guide the discretion of those agencies. |
24-474 |
Food and Drug Administration v. SWT Global Supply |
Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside
the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious. |
24-472 |
National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association v. Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority |
Whether the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act grants legislative power to a private corporation, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, in violation of Article I, section I, clause I of the Constitution (the “private nondelegation doctrine”). |
24-465 |
Texas v. Black |
Whether Congress has unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority to a private entity in the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020. |
24-450 |
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether the Clean Air Act permits remand to the Environmental Protection Agency to supplement the administrative record with new information and justifications after a rule is promulgated. |
24-449 |
Petersen v. Doe |
Whether Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which preserves the traditional practice of excluding biological males from girls’ and women’s sports teams and competitions, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. |
24-441 |
A.M.B. v. McKnight |
Whether a state’s categorical disqualification of unmarried people from adopting the children of their partners violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. |
24-440 |
Berk v. Choy |
Whether a state law providing that a complaint must
be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert
affidavit may be applied in federal court. |
24-437 |
Oklahoma v. Department of Health and Human Services |
(1) Whether a federal agency, through regulations, can impose upon states a funding condition that satisfies the Constitution's spending clause when the underlying statute does not contain or is ambiguous as to that condition; and (2) whether the Weldon Amendment prohibits the federal government from requiring a state's health department to provide abortion referrals. |
24-433 |
Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority v. National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association |
Whether the enforcement provisions of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 are facially unconstitutional under the private nondelegation doctrine. |
24-429 |
Federal Trade Commission v. National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association |
Whether the enforcement provisions of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 — which allow the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, a private entity, to assist the Federal Trade Commission in enforcing the statute—violate the private nondelegation doctrine on their face. |
24-427 |
Hittle v. City of Stockton, California |
(1) Whether this court should overrule McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green; and (2) whether step three of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework requires a plaintiff to disprove the
employer’s proffered reason for the adverse employment
action, when the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Bostock v. Clayton
County provide that an action may
have more than one but-for cause or motivating factor. |
24-421 |
Davis v. Smith |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit exceeded its powers under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in concluding that “every fairminded jurist would agree” that the Ohio courts violated the Constitution in refusing to bar testimony from a
victim of an attempted murder identifying her attacker. |
24-420 |
Walmsley v. Federal Trade Commission |
(1) Whether the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act unlawfully delegates enforcement power to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority; and (2) whether the act unlawfully delegates rulemaking power to the authority. |
24-417 |
National Association of Realtors v. U.S. |
Whether the United States enjoys greater rights
than a private party to withdraw from a contract based
solely on its determination that it no longer wishes to be
bound by that contract. |
24-416 |
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch |
Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a
pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by
the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over
the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding. |
24-413 |
Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding
that the Higher Education Act of 1965 does not permit the assessment
of borrower defenses to repayment before default, in administrative proceedings, or on a group basis; and (2) whether the 5th Circuit erred in ordering
the district court to enter preliminary relief on a universal basis. |
24-396 |
St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond |
(1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. |
24-394 |
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond |
(1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. |
24-390 |
Patterson v. Baz |
(1) Whether parties to a case under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction may waive the right to seek a return elsewhere by agreeing to resolve child-custody disputes exclusively in the United States; and (2) whether parties to a case under the Hague Convention should be held to a decision to waive, forego, or stipulate away rights, including to argue that the habitual residence of a child is outside of the United States, in the same way as any other party would in an ordinary civil action brought in U.S. court. |
24-373 |
Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore |
Whether Maryland’s handgun qualification license requirement violates the Second Amendment. |
24-365 |
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Ramsey |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California’s rule established in McGill v. Citibank. |
24-351 |
U.S. Postal Service v. Konan |
Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants
did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees
intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address
arises out of “the loss” or “miscarriage” of letters or
postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act. |
24-350 |
Port of Tacoma v. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance |
Whether Section 505 of the Clean Water Act authorizes citizens to invoke the federal courts to enforce conditions of state-issued pollutant-discharge permits adopted under state law that mandate a greater scope of coverage than required by the act. |
24-345 |
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. |
Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied
private right of action. |
24-333 |
The Walt Disney Co. v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal |
Whether a state tax law that on its face treats royalty income derived from corporate affiliates less favorably if the affiliates do not subject themselves to the state’s jurisdiction facially discriminates against interstate and foreign commerce. |
24-332 |
IBM Corp. & Combined Affiliates v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal |
Whether a state may impose a “heads I win, tails you lose”
regime that taxes either side of an interstate or foreign
transaction, depending on which side has a nexus to
the state, even though such a regime would inherently
disadvantage interstate and foreign commerce if it
were replicated by every jurisdiction. |
24-319 |
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Harris |
(1) Whether a law is “neutral” and “generally
applicable” under Employment Division v. Smith
where it exempts certain religious organizations — but
not others — based on narrow and subjective religious
criteria unrelated to the law’s purpose, or instead such laws are subject
to strict scrutiny; and (2) whether, if the First Amendment permits such
discrimination among religious organizations under
the rule announced in Smith, that decision should be
overruled. |
24-316 |
Becerra v. Braidwood Management |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that
the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision. |
24-311 |
Protect Our Parks v. Buttigieg |
(1) Whether the Obama Presidential Center project, which includes four structures constructed over 19.3 acres of Frederick Law Olmsted’s Jackson Park, located next to Lake Michigan, is a major federal action under the federal environmental laws because the roadwork required due to the destruction and alteration of its internal roadwork, necessitated by that construction, is federally funded; (2) whether a federal court can properly defer to a federal agency’s narrow, unsupported and highly deferential definition of a major project and thus escape review under this court’s recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and its well-established decision in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe; (3) whether the federal reviews of the center relied upon below employed illegal segmentation to allow large portions of the undertaking to escape federal review under the federal environmental laws; (4) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred in deferring to the federal agencies that either ignored or belittled the destruction of hundreds of trees, migratory bird habitats, and other key environmental effects in declining to require an environmental impact statement; (5) whether the 7th Circuit erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ only motion for leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which was filed before any discovery began, before any schedule was set, and before any trial date was set; and (6) whether the 7th Circuit’s refusal to reverse the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) of state law claims violated both Illinois law and this court’s precedents dealing with the duty of loyalty, duty of care, and nondelegation and public-trust doctrines. |
24-302 |
Mendez v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the government may conduct a
warrantless search of the electronic contents of a
person’s cell phone at the border; and (2) whether the government may conduct a
suspicionless search of the electronic contents of a
person’s cell phone at the border. |
24-300 |
Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Jeffries |
Whether the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires an agency to produce its “whole record” for judicial review, permits an agency to categorically and unilaterally exclude from the administrative record materials that the agency deems deliberative. |
24-297 |
Mahmoud v. Taylor |
Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out. |
24-277 |
Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran |
Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s terrorism exception extends jurisdiction to claims
arising from a foreign state’s material support for a
terrorist attack that injures or disables, but does not
kill, its victims. |
24-249 |
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 |
Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education. |
24-220 |
Jacobsen v. Montana Democratic Party |
(1) What standard applies, when the Supreme Court reviews a state court’s decision invalidating state legislation under the Constitution's elections clause, to whether that decision exceeds the bounds of ordinary judicial review; and (2) whether the Montana Supreme Court’s split decision below exceeded the bounds of ordinary judicial review by invalidating under the Montana Constitution two Montana election integrity provisions — one setting the voter-registration deadline at noon the day before election day, and another requiring the secretary of state to promulgate regulations banning paid absentee ballot collection. |
24-46 |
Nivar Santana v. Garland |
What standard of proof applies when a noncitizen previously admitted to the United States seeks to obtain relief from removal by having her status adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident. |
23-402 |
Oklahoma v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 violates the private non-delegation doctrine; and (2) whether the act violates the anti-commandeering doctrine by coercing states into funding a federal regulatory program. |
22O160 |
Utah v. U.S. |
Whether the federal policy embodied in 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(1) of perpetual federal retention of unappropriated public lands in Utah is unconstitutional. |