Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

We're currently hosting a symposium on Tuesday's decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. Click to follow along.
We also hosted a symposium on Monday's decision in June Medical Services v. Russo. Click to read the submissions.

Briefly Mentioned :

Briefly Noted :

On Thursday, the court released orders from the July 1 conference. The justices granted five cases for a total of four hours of oral argument next term.
On Monday, we expect the court to release opinions at 10 a.m. We will be live-blogging starting at 9:20 a.m. at this link, where you can sign up for an email reminder when the live blog begins.

Petitions We’re Watching

You can select a particular conference (or the cases referred to the Solicitor General) below or click here to instead sort by the case's name. (Sorting by case name prompts display of the complete, searchable list of cases.)

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
19-507 Publishers Business Services Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (1) Whether a district court can award monetary relief under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, consistent with separation of powers principles; and (2) whether a monetary disgorgement award under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act is a penalty and therefore outside a district court’s inherent equity powers.
19-508 AMG Capital Management, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission Whether Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, by authorizing “injunction[s],” also authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to demand monetary relief such as restitution—and if so, the scope of the limits or requirements for such relief.
19-825 Federal Trade Commission v. Credit Bureau Center, LLC Whether Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes district courts to enter an injunction that orders the return of unlawfully obtained funds.
19-914 Credit Bureau Center, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission Whether the second proviso of Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, providing that the Federal Trade Commission “may seek” a permanent injunction, is an independent grant of authority to “file suit” seeking implied consumer redress remedies circumventing the elaborate enforcement scheme set by Congress.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
19-563 Mnuchin v. Collins (1) Whether the statute’s anti-injunction clause, which precludes courts from taking any action that would “restrain or affect the exercise of powers or functions of the Agency as a conservator,” 12 U.S.C. 4617(f), precludes a federal court from setting aside the Third Amendment. 2. Whether the statute’s succession clause—under which FHFA, as conservator, inherits the shareholders’ rights to bring derivative actions on behalf of the enterprises—precludes the shareholders from challenging the Third Amendment.
19-422 Collins v. Mnuchin (1) Whether the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s structure violates the separation of powers; and (2) whether the courts must set aside a final agency action that FHFA took when it was unconstitutionally structured and strike down the statutory provisions that make FHFA independent.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
19-8695 Gutierrez v. Collier (1) Whether, under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the state’s decision to deprive Mr. Gutierrez of the opportunity to be accompanied during his execution by a religious adviser employed by the prison substantially burdens the exercise of his religion, requiring the state to justify the deprivation as the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling governmental interest; and (2) whether, for purposes of the free exercise clause, the state’s blanket policy of denying all prisoners the aid of a religious adviser at the time of the execution—adopted for the acknowledged purpose of avoiding the obligation to allow such a minister to a Buddhist prisoner—burdens Mr. Gutierrez’s exercise of religion without legitimate justification.
19-1418 Zoie H. v. Nebraska Whether the Second and Sixth Amendments permit a state to deprive an individual of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms based on the commission of an offense while denying the accused a right to a jury trial for that offense.
19-1414 U.S. v. Cooley Whether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search the respondent, Joshua James Cooley, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.
19-1411 Rupert v. Janvey Whether the standing requirement of Article III limits receivers to bringing claims that are coextensive with the receivership estate and thus whether Article III precludes receivers from bringing, settling and barring claims of third parties against non-receivership entities.
19-1402 Zacarias v. Janvey Whether a district court in a receivership action has Article III jurisdiction to bar investor claims for individual injuries when the receiver lacks standing to bring those claims himself due to the lack of an injury to the receivership estate.
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).
19-1398 Lieu v. Federal Election Commission Whether the federal statutory limit on contributions to political committees, 52 U.S.C. § 30116(a)(1)(C), comports with the First Amendment as applied to committees that make only independent expenditures.
19-1388 Small v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Whether Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Hardison, which stated that employers suffer an “undue hardship” in accommodating an employee’s religious exercise whenever doing so would require them “to bear more than a de minimis cost,” misinterprets 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j) – which specifies that “‘religion’ includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business” – and should be overruled.
19-1382 Sterling Jewelers Inc. v. Jock Whether an arbitrator may compel class arbitration—binding the parties and absent class members—without finding actual consent, and instead based only on a finding that the agreement does not unambiguously prohibit class arbitration and should be construed against the drafter.
19-1380 Olson v. Amatuzio Whether a petitioner who has no available remedy in habeas, through no lack of diligence on his part, is barred by Heck v. Humphrey from pursuing a Section 1983 claim challenging the validity or duration of his incarceration.
19-1365 Hueso v. Barnhart Whether, notwithstanding the savings clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) – which allows a prisoner whose claim for postconviction relief is otherwise barred to petition for a writ of habeas corpus if the Section 2255 remedy is “inadequate or ineffective” to test the legality of his detention – an individual serving a wrongfully enhanced sentence is barred from obtaining relief, solely because the wrongfulness of the sentence was established retroactively by a court of appeals decision.
19-1362 Laut v. U.S. (1) What test, if any, should be used to determine whether a constructive amendment impacted a defendant’s substantial rights under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b); and (2) what showing is required to determine whether a constructive amendment is “plain” error under Rule 52(b).
19-1361 Jordan v. Georgia Department of Corrections Whether evidence of how other departments of corrections have obtained and successfully administered an alternative execution method is relevant to showing the method is feasible and available under Glossip v. Gross.
19-1357 Perez v. Colorado Whether, and to what extent, the Sixth and 14th Amendments guarantee a criminal defendant the right to discover potentially exculpatory mental health records held by a private party, notwithstanding a state privilege law to the contrary.
19-1339 Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp. v. Senne (1) Whether Tyson Foods Inc. v. Bouaphakeo sanctions the use of statistical surveys to establish commonality and predominance for a wage-and-hour class that encompasses different kinds of employees performing different kinds of work for different employers at different worksites under different compensation terms; and (2) whether cohesiveness is required for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).
19-1336 National Retirement Fund v. Metz Culinary Management Inc. Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act prohibits multiemployer pension plan actuaries from selecting actuarial assumptions to calculate withdrawal liability after the measurement date – the last day of the plan year immediately prior to the year in which an employer withdrew – even when such assumptions are based on their “best estimate of anticipated experience under the plan” and professional standards governing actuaries.
19-1334 Signode Industrial Group LLC v. Stone Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred by holding – in conflict with decisions reached by at least two other federal courts of appeals and in spite of the Supreme Court’s holdings in M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett and CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese that collective bargaining agreements must be interpreted according to generally applicable principles of contract law – that a collective bargaining agreement with an “express statement[] extending benefits beyond the term of agreement” irrefutably confers vested, lifetime benefits, even if the agreement separately reserves for the employer the right to terminate the agreement in its entirety.
19-1316 Garcia-Romo v. Barr Whether the government may trigger the stop-time rule – which cuts off a noncitizen’s period of continuous residence – when the government issues a document that fails to include all of the information listed under 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a), followed by a second document that supplies the missing information but nevertheless fails to meet Section 1229(a)’s definition.
19-1315 Nevada v. Walden Whether a state remains immune from suit after voluntarily removing a federal claim to federal court when the state is immune from such claims in its own courts.
19-1309 Phipps v. Idaho Whether the “limited authority to detain” during the execution of a judicially approved search warrant for contraband, under Michigan v. Summers, permits probation officers conducting a routine residence check to detain any visitor present, without any suspicion the visitor has done something unlawful or poses a danger.
19-1307 Thomas v. Barnes Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit misapplied the Supreme Court's precedent in Brecht v. Abrahamson by granting habeas relief when there was no evidence that a juror's contact with a third party had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict.
19-1306 United Parcel Service Inc. v. New York (1) Whether multiple shipments from different shippers may be aggregated to satisfy the 10,000-cigarette threshold of the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, which prohibits the knowing transportation of “a quantity” of more than 10,000 untaxed cigarettes in the “possession” of unauthorized persons; and (2) whether substantial compliance is a prerequisite to the statutory exemption of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009, which exempts the United Parcel Service by name if its tobacco-delivery agreement with New York is “honored” nationwide.
19-1302 Shinn v. Kayer Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254’s deferential standard, and employed a flawed methodology that the Supreme Court has repeatedly condemned, when it granted habeas relief based on a de novo finding that a Sixth Amendment violation had occurred.
19-1301 Bovat v. Vermont Whether a police officer can access “semiprivate” areas within a home’s curtilage to conduct an investigation without a warrant.
19-1291 Hamner v. Burls (1) Whether qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that state actors must assert, as nine U.S. Courts of Appeals hold, or whether federal appellate courts may raise the defense sua sponte, as three U.S. Courts of Appeals hold; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Pearson v. Callahan in light of empirical evidence that bypassing the constitutional prong results in a constitutional catch-22, increasingly leaving pressing questions unanswered simply because they have not been answered before.
19-1285 Lea v. U.S. (1) Whether the federal statute, regulations and contractual provisions governing the transfer and redemption of U.S. savings bonds preempt the state of Arkansas from obtaining ownership of matured but unredeemed bonds through a statute providing for the escheat of title to the state; (2) whether the federal statute, regulations and contractual provisions governing the transfer and redemption of U.S. savings bonds require the U.S. Department of the Treasury to redeem matured savings bonds that are owned by a state pursuant to a valid judgment of escheatment but that the state cannot identify by serial number without Treasury’s assistance; and (3) whether the interpretation of federal law adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit below results in an uncompensated taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.
19-1284 Malwarebytes Inc. v. Enigma Software Group USA, LLC Whether federal courts can derive an implied exception to immunity for computer-service providers from most civil liability under Section 230(c)(2)(B) of the Communications Decency Act for blocking or filtering decisions when the decisions are alleged to be “driven by anticompetitive animus.”
19-1280 Idaho Department of Correction v. Edmo (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in concluding that the guidelines set by an advocacy organization – providing for sex reassignment surgery instead of hormone therapy and counseling for gender dysphoria – constitute the constitutional minima for inmate medical care under the Eighth Amendment, when the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 5th, 10th and 11th Circuits have all concluded that they do not; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit’s holding that a prison health-care provider’s individualized medical decision was unreasonable and therefore constituted deliberate indifference, regardless of his subjective reasoning, conflicts with Estelle v. Gamble, holding that mere negligence does not establish deliberate indifference, and Farmer v. Brennan, holding the provider must have known of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to find deliberate indifference.
19-1279 LaTurner v. U.S. (1) Whether states that have exercised their historic power to escheat title to abandoned U.S. savings bonds may redeem those bonds as successor owners, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit has concluded, or whether federal law preempts such redemption, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held below; and (2) whether U.S. Department of the Treasury regulations requiring presentation of a bond serial number may operate as a time bar to prevent a bond owner who has lost that serial number from ever redeeming that bond.
19-1272 Retzlaff v. Van Dyke Whether under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, state anti-SLAPP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) statutes apply in federal diversity cases, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd and 9th Circuits hold, or do not apply, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 10th, 11th and District of Columbia Circuits hold.
19-1269 TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson Whether a patent owner required to license its standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms has a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a proceeding seeking the equitable relief of specific performance.
19-1260 Demma v. U.S. (1) Whether the discretion recognized under Kimbrough v. United States for a district court to vary from the U.S. Sentencing Commission's sentencing guidelines based on a policy disagreement applies to the child pornography guidelines, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd and 9th Circuits, or whether that discretion is limited or foreclosed altogether, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th and 11th Circuits; and (2) whether substantive-reasonableness review under Gall v. United States requires an appeals court to reassess the relative weight assigned by the district court to each of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th and 11th Circuits, or whether such reweighing is impermissible, as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd and 10th Circuits.
19-1258 Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee (1) Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act compels states to authorize any voting practice that would be used disproportionately by racial minorities, even if existing voting procedures are race-neutral and offer all voters an equal opportunity to vote; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit correctly held that Arizona’s ballot-harvesting prohibition was tainted by discriminatory intent even though the legislators were admittedly driven by partisan interests and by supposedly “unfounded” concerns about voter fraud.
19-1257 Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (1) Whether Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy, which does not count provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and (2) whether Arizona’s ballot-collection law, which permits only certain persons (i.e., family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers and elections officials) to handle another person’s completed early ballot, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the 15th Amendment.
19-1255 Baker v. Rose Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s decision – reversing a federal district court’s denial of habeas relief in a decision that sounds of ordinary error correction instead of applying the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, after the state trial court rejected both the defendant’s and the state’s attempts to introduce evidence of uncharged acts and prior acquittals – violates the AEDPA, given that the Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit under materially indistinguishable circumstances in Nevada v. Jackson.
19-1254 Pennsylvania v. Davis (1) Whether the foregone-conclusion exception to the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination established in Fisher v. United States and its progeny applies to the compelled production of passwords to encrypted electronic devices when the government has seized a device pursuant to a valid search warrant and has independent knowledge that the password exists, is known by the suspect and will decrypt the device, such that the compelled information itself lacks testimonial significance and any testimony implied by the compelled act is already known by the government, is not in issue and adds little or nothing to the sum total of the government's information; and (2) whether, assuming the foregone-conclusion exception applies, the government must demonstrate knowledge relating solely to the password sought or must also demonstrate knowledge of the contents of the encrypted device for which a judge has already authorized a search.
19-1241 National Association of Broadcasters v. Prometheus Radio Project Whether under Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the Federal Communications Commission may repeal or modify media ownership rules that it determines are no longer “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition” without statistical evidence about the prospective effect of its rule changes on minority and female ownership.
19-1231 Federal Communications Commission v. Prometheus Radio Project Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in vacating as arbitrary and capricious the Federal Communications Commission orders under review, which, among other things, relaxed the agency’s cross-ownership restrictions to accommodate changed market conditions.
19-1225 Hunt v. Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico Whether the Board of Regents of the University of New Mexico violated Paul Hunt’s clearly established rights as a private citizen under the First Amendment by punishing him for his off-campus, political speech.
19-1220 Szonyi v. Barr (1) Whether National Cable & Telecommunications Association v. Brand X Internet Services requires deference to an agency standard a court has already deemed to be an impermissible reading of the statutory text; and (2) whether a rule promulgated through adjudication by an agency exercising its Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council step two and Brand X powers can have retroactive effect.
19-1212 Wolf v. Innovation Law Lab (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security policy known as the Migrant Protection Protocols is a lawful implementation of the statutory authority conferred by 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C); (2) whether MPP is consistent with any applicable and enforceable non-refoulement obligations; (3) whether MPP is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act requirement of notice-and-comment rulemaking; and (4) whether the district court’s universal preliminary injunction is impermissibly overbroad.
19-1208 Yanez-Pena v. Barr Whether “a notice to appear” as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) and the Supreme Court’s decision in Pereira v. Sessions can consist of information compiled from multiple documents, rather than one document that contains all of the statutorily required information.
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.
19-1189 BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore Whether 28 U.S.C. 1447(d) permits a court of appeals to review any issue encompassed in a district court’s order remanding a removed case to state court when the removing defendant premised removal in part on the federal-officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1442, or the civil-rights removal statute, 28 U.S.C. 1443.
19-1186 Baker v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (1) Whether Medicaid recipients have a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23) to challenge a state’s determination that a specific provider is not qualified to provide certain medical services; and (2) what framework properly decides whether a statute creates a private right enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19-1184 Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (1) Whether federal courts have authority to save a state or local law from unconstitutionality by positing a limiting construction that has no state-law basis and contradicts governing authorities’ understanding of their own law; and (2) whether Pittsburgh’s buffer-zone ordinance violates the free speech clause.
19-1181 Steinbeck v. Kaffaga Whether collateral estoppel bars an affirmative defense based on 17 U.S.C. § 304(c)(5) in a second litigation, when the first litigation involving different copyright termination rights never decided if the agreement at issue—purporting to transfer control over future termination rights before those rights vested—is unenforceable under Section 304(c)(5).
19-1157 Weatherly v. Pershing, L.L.C. (1) Whether in a class action filed in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, the tolling rule of American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah applies, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has held, or whether state tolling law applies as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in this case and as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th and 9th Circuits have held; and (2) whether, if federal tolling applies, tolling occurs when a plaintiff brings an individual action before the district court has ruled on the class certification question, as the 2nd, 9th and 10th Circuits have ruled, or whether tolling does not apply as the 1st and 6th Circuits have ruled.
19-1156 Barr v. Alcaraz-Enriquez Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume an applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates a withholding-of-removal application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination.
19-1155 Barr v. Dai (1) Whether a court of appeals may conclusively presume that an asylum applicant’s testimony is credible and true whenever an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals adjudicates an application without making an explicit adverse credibility determination; and (2) whether the court of appeals violated the remand rule as set forth in INS v. Ventura when it determined in the first instance that the respondent, Ming Dai, was eligible for asylum and entitled to withholding of removal.
19-1147 Willowood, LLC v. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (1) Whether liability for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) requires that all steps of a patented process must be practiced by, or at least attributable to, a single entity, a requirement that the Supreme Court previously recognized is a prerequisite for infringement under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and (b) in Limelight Networks Inc. v. Akamai Technologies Inc.; and (2) whether, by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to grant expedited review and approval of labels for generic pesticides that are “identical or substantially similar” to the previously approved labels for the same product, Congress intended to preclude claims of copyright infringement with respect to generic pesticide labels.
19-1138 Knight v. Grossman Whether a claim for violation of a prisoner-patient’s 14th Amendment right to informed consent requires a showing of deliberate indifference and proof of refusal or whether the approach adopted by a majority of circuits, which applies a balancing test weighing, on one hand, the state’s interests in providing for the basic needs of prisoners and, on the other hand, the prisoner’s right to such information as is reasonably necessary to make an informed decision to accept or reject proposed treatment as well as a reasonable explanation of the viable alternative treatments available, should control.
19-1116 LinkedIn Corp. v. hiQ Labs Inc. Whether a company that deploys anonymous computer “bots” to circumvent technical barriers and harvest millions of individuals’ personal data from computer servers that host public-facing websites—even after the computer servers’ owner has expressly denied permission to access the data—“intentionally accesses a computer without authorization” in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
19-1108 Mckesson v. Doe Whether the First Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. foreclose a state law negligence action making a leader of a protest demonstration personally liable in damages for injuries inflicted by an unidentified person’s violent act there, when it is undisputed that the leader neither intended, authorized, directed, nor ratified the perpetrator’s act nor engaged in or incited violence of any kind.
19-1099 City of Bakersfield, California v. Crawford Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred when it held that evidence of prior incidents that indicate that an individual may be mentally ill could be introduced for the purpose of determining whether an officer used excessive force and/or was negligent even though neither the officer nor his department had any prior knowledge of such incidents.
19-1098 National Football League v. Ninth Inning Inc. (1) Whether an agreement among the members of a joint venture on how best to distribute the venture’s jointly created core product may be condemned under the Sherman Act without requiring the plaintiff to establish that defendants harmed competition in a properly defined antitrust market; and (2) whether, notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, antitrust damages claims may be brought by indirect purchasers who do not allege that they paid a price fixed by the alleged conspirators.
19-1094 Dailey v. Florida (1) Whether a defendant advancing a claim under Brady v. Maryland must demonstrate that he or she could not have uncovered the suppressed evidence through the exercise of due diligence; (2) whether the materiality of a Brady claim must be determined by considering the probative force of the withheld evidence cumulatively and in the context of the government’s entire case; and (3) whether the Florida Supreme Court’s error in treating petitioner’s claim under Giglio v. United States as though it alleged knowing use of perjury, when it actually alleged withholding exculpatory evidence, warrants reversal.
19-1091 Evans v. Sandy City, Utah (1) Whether a government may ban expressive conduct without first trying to advance its interests using less speech-restrictive measures, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held below, in conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th Circuits; and (2) whether a government may ban all expressive conduct in or near roadways on the ground that doing so is necessary to eliminate the risk of traffic accidents, as the 10th Circuit held below, in conflict with decisions of the Supreme Court and the 1st, 4th and 9th Circuits.
19-1085 Deasey v. Slater Whether, for purposes of qualified immunity, a merely “sufficiently analogous” case is enough to show that the law is “clearly established,” or whether something more is required, i.e., a “closely analogous” case finding the alleged violation unlawful.
19-1067 Browder v. Nehad Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity to a police officer who responded to a midnight emergency call about a suspect threatening others with a knife, encountered that suspect in a dark alley walking towards him holding a metallic object within seconds upon arriving at the scene, and used deadly force.
19-1046 Albence v. Ragbir (1) Whether the respondent, Ravidath Lawrence Ragbir, stated a cognizable constitutional claim regarding the selective enforcement of the immigration laws; and (2) whether the suspension clause guarantees a right to file a habeas petition challenging the revocation of an administrative stay of removal.
19-1029 Austin v. Illinois (1) Whether strict First Amendment scrutiny applies to a criminal law that prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of non-obscene nude or sexually oriented visual material; and (2) whether the First Amendment requires a law that prohibits nonconsensual dissemination of non-obscene nude or sexually oriented visual material to impose a requirement of specific intent to harm or harass the individual(s) depicted.
19-988 Living Essentials, LLC v. Washington Whether the prior-substantiation doctrine—which makes a commercial speaker liable if it lacks adequate “substantiation” for its factual claims before making them in an advertisement, even if the speech is never proven to be false—violates the First Amendment.
19-953 Farrar v. Williams Whether the due process clause is violated when the prosecution relies on material, perjured testimony to secure a conviction but did not know the testimony was perjured until after the trial, as six courts have held, or whether the prosecution’s contemporaneous knowledge of the perjured testimony is required, as eight courts have held.
19-847 Reisman v. Associated Faculties of the University of Maine Whether it violates the First Amendment to designate a labor union to represent and speak for public-sector employees who object to its advocacy on their behalf.
19-793 Institute for Free Speech v. Becerra (1) Whether a state official’s demand for all significant donors to a nonprofit organization, as a precondition to engaging in constitutionally protected speech, constitutes a First Amendment injury; and (2) whether official demands for membership or donor information outside the electoral context should be reviewed under strict or exacting scrutiny.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22O153 Texas v. California Whether California’s sanctions against Texas and Texans – prohibiting state-funded or state-sponsored travel to Texas because Texas protects the religious freedom of faith-based child welfare providers within its borders – are born of religious animus and violate the Constitution’s privileges and immunities clause, interstate commerce clause and guarantee of equal protection.
19-1143 FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit correctly holds that tribal jurisdiction over nonmembers is established whenever an exception under Montana v. United States is met, or whether, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 8th Circuits have held, a court must also determine that the exercise of such jurisdiction stems from the tribe’s inherent authority to set conditions on entry, preserve tribal self-government or control internal relations; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit has construed the Montana exceptions to swallow the general rule that tribes lack jurisdiction over nonmembers.
19-1039 PennEast Pipeline Co. v. New Jersey Whether the Natural Gas Act delegates to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission certificate-holders the authority to exercise the federal government’s eminent-domain power to condemn land in which a state claims an interest.
19-648 CACI Premier Technology Inc. v. Al Shimari Whether an order denying a federal contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is an immediately appealable final order under the collateral-order doctrine.
19-255 Thomas More Law Center v. Becerra (1) Whether exacting scrutiny or strict scrutiny applies to disclosure requirements that burden nonelectoral, expressive association rights; and (2) whether California’s disclosure requirement violates charities’ and their donors’ freedom of association and speech facially or as applied to the Thomas More Law Center.
19-251 Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra Whether the exacting scrutiny the Supreme Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context – as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson and its progeny – can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.
Term Snapshot
At a Glance
Awards