| 20-1180 |
Territory of American Samoa v. National Marine Fisheries Service |
Whether the Deeds of Cession, by which the territory of American Samoa became part of the United
States, establish binding and enforceable obligations
on the United States and its agencies. |
| 20-1174 |
Lippard v. Holleman |
Whether the First Amendment’s religion clauses
prohibit courts from hearing defamation claims that
arise from ecclesiastical settings, even when the
claims can be resolved using neutral principles of law. |
| 20-1163 |
Gloucester County School Board v. Grimm |
Whether Title IX or the equal protection clause
require 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. |
| 20-1162 |
Maine Community Health Options v. U.S. |
Whether the government is required to pay
insurers the full amount of the cost-sharing reduction
payments required by the unambiguous shall-pay
language of Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act. |
| 20-1148 |
Sellers v. McDonough |
Whether, when a veteran has
submitted an application for disability benefits, the veteran’s claim encompasses all reasonably identifiable conditions within the veteran’s service records. |
| 20-1143 |
Badgerow v. Walters |
Whether federal courts have subject-matter jurisdiction to confirm or vacate an arbitration award under Sections 9 and 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act when the only basis for jurisdiction is that the underlying dispute involved a federal
question. |
| 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. |
| 20-1137 |
California Parents for the Equalization of Educational Materials v. Torlakson |
Whether the free exercise clause permits the government to single out a religion for disfavored treatment so long as it does not “substantially burden” religious exercise. |
| 20-1130 |
Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. |
(1) Whether, notwithstanding the ordinary rule that a
pretrial denial of a motion for summary judgment is not
reviewable on appeal, there is an exception for summary-judgment decisions that turn solely on “legal issues”; and (2) whether an order denying summary judgment
can be reviewed following trial, at the discretion of the
court of appeals, notwithstanding a party’s failure to seek
judgment as a matter of law on those grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50. |
| 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. |
| 20-1113 |
American Hospital Association v. Cochran |
Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council applies to a statutory
interpretation question that determines both the lawfulness of agency action and the court’s jurisdiction. |
| 20-1106 |
Doe v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Inc. |
(1) Whether, on de novo consideration of a benefits claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, summary judgment must be denied if
there is a genuine dispute of material fact; and (2) whether, on de novo consideration of an ERISA
benefits claim and absent a challenge to the plan’s procedures, a district court has discretion to consider evidence
that was not part of the record before the plan administrator. |
| 20-1095 |
Haws v. Idaho |
Whether a criminal defendant’s purported waiver of
the right to appeal in a plea agreement is knowing,
intelligent and voluntary—as required by the due
process clauses of the Fifth and 14th
Amendments—when the trial court incorrectly
informs the defendant, during the colloquy in which
the court accepts the defendant’s guilty plea, that the
defendant has reserved the right to appeal. |
| 20-1093 |
Just Energy Marketing Corp. v. Hurt |
Whether, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held, Just Energy Marketing Corp.'s door-to-door solicitors are exempt “outside salesmen”
under the Fair Labor Standards Act or, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held,
the door-to-door solicitors are not exempt
“outside salesmen” under the FLSA because the sales
agreements remain subject to regulatory checks and
Just Energy Marketing Corp.'s ultimate approval. |
| 20-1092 |
Jones v. U.S. |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 514(a) — which prohibits the use of “any false or
fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing,
representing, purporting, or contriving through scheme
or artifice, to be an actual [government] security or other
financial instrument” — prohibits only the use of nonexistent types of documents
and instruments (as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th
Circuits have held), or whether it also covers the use of
fake versions of actual, existing types of documents and
instruments (as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 11th and, in this case, 2nd
Circuit have held). |
| 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. |
| 20-1084 |
Dunn v. Reeves |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by
readily attributing error to the state court in violation of Woodford v. Visciotti. |
| 20-1072 |
Thompson v. DeWine |
Whether and how the First Amendment applies to
regulations that impede a person’s ability to place an
initiative on the ballot. |
| 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. |
| 20-1043 |
U.S. v. Cano |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that
the scope of a search of an electronic device under the
border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s
warrant requirement is limited solely to digital contraband on the device itself, and cannot include evidence of
physical smuggling or other border-related crimes. |
| 20-1034 |
Golan v. Saada |
Whether, upon finding that return to the country of
habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district
court is required to consider ameliorative measures that
would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding
the grave risk finding. |
| 20-1018 |
Louisiana Real Estate Appraisers Board v. Federal Trade Commission |
Whether and under what conditions orders
denying state-action immunity to public entities are
immediately appealable under the collateral-order
doctrine. |
| 20-1010 |
Rranxburgaj v. Mayorkas |
Whether legal determinations antecedent to agencies' discretionary decisions to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases or execute removal orders "arise from" these decisions for purposes of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), which provides that "no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the U.S. attorney general to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter." |
| 20-1009 |
Shinn v. Ramirez |
Whether application of the equitable rule the Supreme Court
announced in Martinez v. Ryan renders the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which precludes a federal
court from considering evidence outside the state-court record when reviewing the merits of a claim for
habeas relief if a prisoner or his attorney has failed
to diligently develop the claim’s factual basis in state
court, inapplicable to a federal court’s merits
review of a claim for habeas relief. |
| 20-1004 |
Collier v. Dallas County Hospital District |
(1) Whether an employee’s exposure to the N-word
in the workplace is severe enough to send his
Title VII hostile-work-environment claim to a
trier of fact; and (2) whether and in what circumstances racial
epithets in the workplace are “extremely
serious” incidents sufficient to create a hostile
work environment under Title VII, rather than
nonactionable “mere utterances.” |
| 20-1000 |
Dominguez v. U.S. |
Whether attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act qualifies as a “crime of violence,” meaning that it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person or
property of another." |
| 20-994 |
Volkswagen Group of America Inc. v. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, Florida |
Whether the Clean Air Act preempts
state and local governments from regulating manufacturers’ post-sale, nationwide updates to vehicle emission systems. |
| 20-988 |
Smith v. Tyson |
(1) Whether the review required under Section 2254 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and Cullen v. Pinholster is
violated by reliance upon a “some ambiguity” standard
utilized by the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 3rd Circuit to find a due process
violation without affording the required benefit of
the doubt to both defense counsel and the trial court; (2) whether the 3rd Circuit's decision granting
habeas relief on the basis of alleged erroneous jury
instructions in a state accomplice murder trial err by
failing to apply the Supreme Court’s own precedent in Waddington v. Sarasaud; and (3) whether, by ignoring whole sections of the trial court’s
charge to the jury with respect to accomplice liability
and failing to view it in the context of the trial record,
the 3rd Circuit erred in concluding that there
exists a substantial and not just a conceivable likelihood
of a different result. |
| 20-984 |
Grewal v. Defense Distributed |
Whether a nonresident state official subjects itself
to personal jurisdiction in another forum state when
it sends a single cease-and-desist letter to a single resident in that state. |
| 20-982 |
Brown v. Polk County, Wisconsin |
Whether the Fourth Amendment permits jail officials to conduct a physical, penetrative search of the
vagina and/or anus of a pretrial detainee without a
warrant, probable cause or exigent circumstances,
including in cases of persons detained for minor nonviolent non-drug offenses like shoplifting. |
| 20-975 |
Owens v. Stirling |
(1) For claims of ineffective
assistance of trial counsel, what standard is to be used by federal
courts of appeals for determining whether the
underlying constitutional claim is “substantial”
under Martinez v. Ryan, and how does it relate to the
determination that a petitioner has met the
requirements to obtain a Certificate of
Appealability, under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and as described by the Supreme Court in Miller-El v.
Cockrell; and (2) whether, under the Martinez standard, it is proper for
courts of appeals determining the substantial quality
of the underlying constitutional claim to rely on an
imbalanced consideration of the record, including
ignoring evidence in the record in support of a
petitioner’s underlying constitutional claim—as
happened in Freddie Owens’s case. |
| 20-962 |
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services v. City and County of San Francisco, California |
(1) Whether entities that are not subject to the
public-charge ground of inadmissibility contained in
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(4)(A), and which seek to expand benefits usage by aliens who are potentially subject to that
provision, are proper parties to challenge the final rule that an alien is “inadmissible” if, “in the opinion
of the [Secretary of Homeland Security] at the time of
application for admission or adjustment of status, [the
alien] is likely at any time to become a public charge”; and (2) whether the final rule is likely contrary to law or
arbitrary and capricious. |
| 20-953 |
Ellis v. Liberty Life Assurance Company of Boston |
What the correct test to
apply is in deciding whether an otherwise applicable state
law—here, a state law prohibiting discretion-conferring
provisions in insurance contracts—can be displaced by an
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 plan’s choice-of-law clause. |
| 20-951 |
Stewart v. City of Euclid, Ohio |
Whether, when a municipal employee has violated the
Constitution, a plaintiff must point to “clearly
established law” (such as would overcome a defense of
qualified immunity by an individual officer) in order
to prove deliberate indifference for municipal liability
purposes. |
| 20-941 |
Atkins v. Williams |
(1) Whether the unavailability of funds or other
resources negates the subjective component of a
deliberate indifference claim under the Eighth
Amendment; and (2) whether, if lack of funds is a valid defense at all, a
defendant can assert this defense when sued in his or her
official capacity for injunctive relief. |
| 20-940 |
Alaska v. Wright |
Whether, when an offender has fully served the sentence imposed pursuant to a state
conviction, a federal habeas court has jurisdiction to consider a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenge
to that conviction merely because it served as a predicate for an independent federal
conviction under which the offender is now in custody. |
| 20-937 |
Andrews v. New Jersey |
Whether the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth
Amendment protects an individual from being
compelled to recall and truthfully disclose a
memorized passcode, when communicating the
passcode may lead to the discovery of incriminating
evidence to be used against him in a criminal
prosecution. |
| 20-928 |
National Coalition For Men v. Selective Service System |
Whether, in light of the
Department of Defense having lifted the ban on
women in combat, the Supreme Court should overrule Rostker v. Goldberg, which upheld the men-only draft because women at that time were categorically prohibited from serving in combat roles,
and hold that the federal requirement that men but
not women register for the Selective Service, authorized under 50 U.S.C. § 3802(a), violates the right to
equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. |
| 20-923 |
Wilkinson v. Acosta-Pena |
Whether the government must provide written notice under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a)(1), which is required to trigger the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1)(A), in a single document. |
| 20-911 |
Jackson v. Hudson |
Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2255 — which allows a person in federal custody to challenge the legality of his detention by filing a post-conviction motion, as well as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 if the Section 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his
detention” — is “inadequate or ineffective”
when, at the time of petitioner’s initial Section 2255
motion, circuit precedent foreclosed a potential claim,
but that precedent has since been overruled by the Supreme
Court. |
| 20-905 |
Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H. ex rel. L.H. and S.D. |
Whether the continuing-violation doctrine applies
to the two-year statutory time limit to file an administrative complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. |
| 20-895 |
Seldin v. Estate of Silverman |
(1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act categorically forecloses
courts from vacating an arbitration award on the
ground that the award is contrary to public policy; and (2) whether the FAA’s protection against an
arbitrator’s “evident partiality” is
triggered when there is a reasonable impression of
partiality, or instead by a more heightened standard
such as a showing of actual bias. |
| 20-891 |
American Axle & Manufacturing Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC |
(1) What standard determines whether a patent claim is “directed to” a
patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Supreme Court’s
two-step framework for determining whether an
invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101; and (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. |
| 20-886 |
McCoy v. U.S. |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in applying the test from Brunner v. New York State
Higher Education Services Corp., which prohibits discharge unless the
debtor can prove, among other things, a “total incapacity” to repay the debt in the future, instead of the
totality test to determine whether a debtor would suffer an “undue hardship” absent discharge of her student loan debt. |
| 20-880 |
Holland v. Westmoreland Coal Co. |
(1) Whether the exception to the
Anti-Injunction Act in South Carolina v. Regan — in which the Supreme Court held that the
AIA did not bar South Carolina from filing an original-jurisdiction action in the Supreme Court to raise a 10th
Amendment challenge to an income tax assessed on
private citizens — is available to debtors who want to
avoid paying a tax for reasons unrelated to the tax’s
validity; and (2) whether Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act premiums are “any tax” protected by
the Anti-Injunction Act. |
| 20-875 |
Kong v. City of Burnsville, Minnesota |
Whether, on interlocutory review of a denial of
qualified immunity, an appellate court may
reject a district court’s determination of a
genuine issue of material fact even if the record
does not blatantly contradict that
determination. |
| 20-866 |
Allen v. Wells Fargo & Co. |
(1) Whether, under Fifth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer, fiduciaries of an employee stock ownership fund are effectively immune from duty-of-prudence
liability for the failure to publicly disclose inside
information; and (2) whether Dudenhoeffer’s framework extends
beyond prudence-based claims and applies to duty-of-loyalty claims against ESOP fiduciaries. |
| 20-861 |
Fry v. Rand Construction Corp. |
(1) Whether the lower
court erred in adopting what is, in essence, a
“sole cause” standard for a “but-for”
cause, in direct conflict with the
Supreme Court’s holdings in Burrage v. United States and Bostock v. Clayton County; and (2) whether the correct
causation standard for petitioner Arlene Fry's Family and Medical Leave Act claim is but-for, motivating
factor or negative factor. |
| 20-860 |
Gilbertson v. U.S. |
Whether the Sixth Amendment prohibits a court from
imposing criminal restitution on a defendant based on
facts not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| 20-843 |
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett |
Whether the Second Amendment allows the
government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens
from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. |
| 20-836 |
Broadway v. U.S. |
(1) Whether courts owe deference to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary when it expands the scope
of the Sentencing Guidelines; and (2) whether the rule of lenity and the right to due process
preclude deference under Stinson v. United States when commentary to a
Sentencing Guideline would increase a sentence. |
| 20-831 |
Washington v. Domingo-Cornelio |
Whether Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama require an individual proportionality determination before
imposing any sentence on a juvenile offender
convicted in adult court. |
| 20-830 |
Washington v. Ali |
Whether Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama require an individual proportionality determination before
imposing any sentence on a juvenile offender
convicted in adult court. |
| 20-828 |
Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga |
Whether Section 1806(f) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act of 1978 displaces the state-secrets
privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in
camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging
the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence. |
| 20-827 |
U.S. v. Abu Zubaydah |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it rejected
the United States’ assertion of the state-secrets privilege based on the court’s own assessment of potential
harms to the national security, and required discovery
to proceed further under 28 U.S.C. 1782(a) against former Central Intelligence Agency contractors on
matters concerning alleged clandestine CIA activities. |
| 20-826 |
Brown v. Davenport |
Whether a federal habeas court may grant relief based
solely on its conclusion that the test from Brecht v. Abrahamson is
satisfied, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held, or whether
the court must also find that the state court’s application of Chapman v. California was unreasonable under
28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 7th,
9th and 10th Circuits have held. |
| 20-812 |
Folajtar v. Barr |
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which permanently
prohibits nearly all felons—even those convicted of
nonviolent crimes—from possessing firearms for self-defense, violates the Second Amendment, as applied
to an individual convicted of willfully making a
materially false statement on her tax returns. |
| 20-808 |
Miles v. California |
(1) Whether a court reviewing a claim under Batson v. Kentucky may
consider reasons distinguishing stricken jurors from
those accepted by the prosecutor when the prosecutor
did not cite the distinguishing reason in the trial court
as a basis for the strike; and (2) whether, for purposes of comparative juror
analysis, the jurors being compared must have
expressed the same combination of responses in all
material respects for the comparison to have
significant probative value. |
| 20-804 |
Houston Community College System v. Wilson |
Whether the First Amendment restricts the authority
of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in
response to a member’s speech. |
| 20-782 |
Holloway v. Wilkinson |
Whether a lifetime firearms prohibition based on a
nonviolent misdemeanor conviction violates the Second
Amendment. |
| 20-768 |
Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection |
Whether, when the government seizes a vehicle for civil forfeiture, due process requires a prompt post-seizure
hearing to test the legality of the seizure and continued
detention of the vehicle pending the final forfeiture
trial. |
| 20-753 |
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County, Washington |
Whether the United States can change the scope of its re-assumption of Pub. L. 83-280 jurisdiction over crimes involving Indians in Indian
Country years after the re-assumption became effective
under 25 U.S.C. § 1323 without the Yakama Nation’s
prior consent required by 25 U.S.C. § 1326. |
| 20-748 |
PHI Air Medical, LLC v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co. |
(1) Whether the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 preempts a state workers’
compensation system that limits the prices an
air-ambulance company can charge and collect for its
air-transport services; and (2) whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act exempts
such a system from ADA preemption. |
| 20-746 |
South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom |
(1) Whether California Governor Gavin Newsom’s lockdown orders and
reopening restrictions under the “Blueprint”
framework, placing strict limitations, including
closures, on all places of worship in California, violates South Bay’s First Amendment right to free
exercise of religion; and (2) whether strict scrutiny is the proper standard of review for challenges to state and county restrictions upon
free-exercise-of-religion rights during a pandemic,
or whether Jacobson v. Massachusetts imposes extra
limitations to the Supreme Court’s established line of free-exercise jurisprudence during a pandemic. |
| 20-733 |
Rickmon v. U.S. |
Whether the sound of gunshots creates an emergency
so that the “individualized suspicion” required by Terry v. Ohio
attaches to anyone near the shots. |
| 20-727 |
Facebook Inc. v. Davis |
Whether an internet content provider violates the
Wiretap Act when a computer user’s web browser instructs the provider to display content on the webpage
the user visits. |
| 20-718 |
Reyes-Romero v. U.S. |
Whether, when a district court considers awarding attorney’s fees and costs to a prevailing criminal defendant, the Hyde Amendment inquiry into whether “the position of the United
States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith” encompass actions of non-prosecutor government employees underlying the criminal case. |
| 20-701 |
Calvert v. Texas |
(1) Whether the Constitution prevents a state from
allowing a defendant to represent himself in a capital
case when the defendant is mentally competent to waive
counsel but is not mentally competent to conduct trial
proceedings in his capital trial; (2) whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the
state of Texas from sentencing petitioner James Calvert to death on a
finding of future dangerousness based in substantial
part on graphic testimony and evidence about an attack
on a prison official committed by another inmate in
another prison at another time, having no connection to Calvert; and (3) whether the constitutional violation resulting
from the trial court’s direction to administer a 50,000-
volt electric shock to Calvert during his trial to
“enforce decorum” because Calvert failed to stand
when responding to a question from the court
constitutes structural error. |
| 20-690 |
Han v. U.S. |
Whether a court may consider factors other than the parties’
intent in determining whether a transfer of funds constitutes a non-taxable loan under the Internal
Revenue Code. |
| 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. |
| 20-637 |
Hemphill v. New York |
Whether, or under
what circumstances, a criminal defendant, whose argumentation or introduction of
evidence at trial “opens the door” to
the admission of responsive evidence that would
otherwise be barred by the rules of evidence, also forfeits his right
to exclude evidence otherwise barred by the
confrontation clause. |
| 20-609 |
Gannett Co. v. Quatrone |
Whether a plaintiff adequately pleads breach of the
duties of prudence and diversification solely by alleging that fiduciaries permitted participants in a defined contribution plan to choose, from an adequately
diversified menu of investment options, to invest in
an undiversified single-stock fund. |
| 20-605 |
Wholean v. CSEA SEIU Local 2001 |
Whether there is a “good faith defense” to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
that shields a defendant from damages liability for depriving citizens of their constitutional rights if the defendant acted under color of a law before it was held
unconstitutional. |
| 20-601 |
Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. |
(1) Whether a state attorney general vested with the
power to defend state law should be permitted to
intervene after a federal court of appeals invalidates a state statute when no other state actor will defend the
law; and (2) whether, if so, the Supreme Court should vacate the
judgment below and remand for further consideration
in light of June Medical
Services, L.L.C. v. Russo. |
| 20-579 |
Tabb v. U.S. |
(1) Whether courts may defer to Sentencing Guidelines commentary without first determining that the underlying guideline is genuinely ambiguous; and (2) whether the U.S. Sentencing Commission can use
commentary to rewrite a guideline that applies to “prohibit[ions]” on the “distribution” of drugs to apply to conspiracies and attempts to distribute drugs. |
| 20-559 |
Doe v. U.S. |
(1) Whether Feres v. United States, which held that the Federal Tort Claims Act broadly precludes claims for injuries
“incident to service,” was wrongly decided and should be
overruled; and (2) whether, alternatively, Feres should be limited so as not to
bar tort claims brought by servicemembers injured by
violations of military regulations, during recreational
activities or while attending a service academy. |
| 20-507 |
Mays v. Hines |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s decision — invalidating Anthony Hines' decades-old murder conviction and death sentence on
the ground that a state court unreasonably applied
Strickland v. Washington, when it
concluded that Hines suffered no prejudice from any
deficiencies in his counsel’s performance at the guilt
and penalty phases of his capital trial — conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedents
governing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996. |
| 20-489 |
Bess v. U.S. |
(1) Whether 10 U.S.C. § 825, which allows a military commander to hand select members to sit on a general court-martial panel, as applied in Pedro Bess’
case — in which an all-white panel convicted a Black defendant of sexual misconduct against a white woman — violates the Fifth Amendment; and (2) whether the lower court erred in declining to
remand Bess' case for additional factfinding. |
| 20-397 |
Wilkinson v. Portillo Martinez |
Whether the government must provide the written
notice required to trigger the stop-time rule in a single document. |
| 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. |
| 20-251 |
Gipson v. Louisiana |
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Ramos v.
Louisiana applies to cases on
state collateral review, when the state follows the
retroactivity framework established in Teague v.
Lane. |
| 20-83 |
Jones v. Kalbaugh |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit improperly focused on the
knowledge and intentions of the suspect, rather than
the facts knowable to the officers, in reversing the district court’s grant of qualified immunity in an excessive
force case; and (2) whether the 10th Circuit analyzed clearly established
law at too high a level of generality by relying on general statements of Fourth Amendment excessive force
principles rather than identifying a case in which officers
acting under similar circumstances were held to have
violated the Fourth Amendment. |
| 19-1194 |
Kuang v. Department of Defense |
(1) Whether courts can evade their constitutional
and statutory duty to review military decisions under
the so-called “Mindes test,” from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's decision in Mindes v. Seamen, or whether claims seeking
injunctive relief against the military are reviewable
so long as they do not present a nonjusticiable
political question or otherwise fall outside the court’s
subject-matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether a Department of Defense policy that requires all legal
permanent resident enlistees—but not their U.S.-
citizen counterparts—to suffer unjustified delays
before beginning their military careers is judicially
reviewable. |
