Breaking News

Petitions We’re Watching

View Petitions by Category.

Petitions We're Watching
Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22-1053 ABKCO Music v. Sagan Whether direct liability for copyright infringement is limited to the person who actually “presses the button” to make the infringing copies.
22-203 Apple v. California Institute of Technology Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erroneously extended inter partes review estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) to all grounds that reasonably could have been raised in the petition filed before an inter partes review is instituted, even though the text of the statute applies estoppel only to grounds that “reasonably could have [been] raised during that inter partes review.” CVSG: 5/23/2023
22-868 Bastias v. Garland Whether the provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act providing that noncitizens may be removed, and are ineligible for many forms of discretionary relief from removal, if they have been “convicted of ... a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” encompasses a conviction for a state crime of child endangerment that criminalizes a negligent act creating a risk of harm to a child, even if no harm actually ensues.
22-115 Buckner v. U.S. Pipe & Foundry Co. (1) Whether the equitable right to compel a coal company covered by the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992 to maintain an individual employer plan is a dischargeable “claim” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5)(B); and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in holding that a covered company’s obligations under the Coal Act arose, once and for all time, when the act became law, such that a bankruptcy discharge relieves a company from its statutory obligations to maintain a plan and pay Coal Act premiums incurred after bankruptcy. CVSG: 5/23/2023
22-674 Campos-Chaves v. Garland Whether the government provides notice “required under” and “in accordance with paragraph (1) or (2) of” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) when it serves an initial notice document that does not include the “time and place” of proceedings followed by an additional document containing that information, such that an immigration court must enter a removal order in absentia and deny a noncitizen's request to rescind that order.
22-529 Cantero v. Bank of America Whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.
22-238 Charter Day School v. Peltier Whether a private entity that contracts with the state to operate a charter school engages in state action when it formulates a policy without coercion or encouragement by the government. CVSG: 5/22/2023.
22-614 Chrisman v. Estate of Seth Michael Zakora Whether a prisoner’s criminal act of voluntarily ingesting an illegal drug banned within the prison can give rise to that prisoner’s federal constitutional claim that under the Eighth Amendment state corrections officials failed to protect him by not preventing the influx of illegal drugs into the prison or failed to supervise other employees to protect him.
22-1019 CoreCivic v. Owino (1) Whether courts of appeals reviewing class-certification decisions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 must, as a matter of law, give district court decisions granting class certification “noticeably more deference” than rulings denying class certification; and (2) whether Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement is satisfied through the assertion of a purportedly class-wide policy without significant proof that such policy is uniformly applied class-wide.
22-1008 Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System Whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule — regardless of whether that rule injures the plaintiff on that date — or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer[] legal wrong” or be “adversely affected or aggrieved.”
22-231 Davis v. Legal Services Alabama Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of Title VII prohibit discrimination as to all “terms,” “conditions,” or “privileges” of employment, or are limited to “significant” discriminatory employer actions only. CVSG: 5/18/2023
22-846 Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz Whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.
22-957 Dermody v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services Whether an annuity that satisfies the condition in 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)(2)(B)(i) determining the Medicaid eligibility of a married institutionalized person must name the state as the first remainder beneficiary in order to avoid Section 1396p(c)(1)’s transfer penalty.
22-913 Devillier v. Texas Whether a person whose property is taken without compensation may seek redress under the self-executing takings clause of the Fifth Amendment even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action.
22-863 Diaz-Rodriguez v. Garland Whether the provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act providing that noncitizens may be removed, and are ineligible for many forms of discretionary relief from removal, if they have been “convicted of ... a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” encompasses a conviction for a state crime of child endangerment that criminalizes a negligent act creating a risk of harm to a child, even if no harm actually ensues.
22-887 Diaz-Tomas v. North Carolina Whether North Carolina’s practice of indefinitely postponing drunk-driving prosecutions where the defendant fails to appear for a scheduled court date unless the defendant pleads guilty and relinquishes their right to a trial violates the speedy trial clause of the Sixth Amendment or the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
22-1055 Elbaz v. U.S. (1) Whether the federal wire-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, applies extraterritorially or is limited to domestic applications; and (2) whether, if the wire-fraud statute is limited to domestic applications, it can be applied to foreign conduct by foreign actors as part of a foreign scheme so long as the scheme involves an incidental domestic wire transmission, or whether the scheme must involve substantial domestic conduct, such as the use of domestic wires as an essential component of the fraudulent scheme.
22-1005 Emily v. Welters Whether the Minnesota Supreme Court departed from this court’s decisions in City of Tahlequah v. Bond, Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, and many other qualified immunity cases by defining the relevant law at a high level of generality and holding that “less particularity is required to clearly establish what the constitution requires” when engaging in “routine conduct.”
22-741 Faith Bible Chapel Int'l v. Tucker (1) Whether the First Amendment’s “ministerial exception” should be understood as an immunity from judicial interference in church employment decisions falling within the exception, or instead as a mere defense against liability; and (2) whether the ministerial exception applies here to bar employment-discrimination claims by a school chaplain who led chapel services, taught in the Bible department, and provided spiritual guidance and counseling to students.
22-349 Flagstar Bank v. Kivett Whether the National Bank Act preempts state laws that, like California Civil Code § 2954.8(a), attempt to set the terms on which federally chartered banks may offer mortgage escrow accounts authorized by federal law.
22-848 Fox v. Campbell (1) Whether the Fourth Amendment standard for evaluating unreasonable force claims established in Graham v. Connor or the Fourteenth Amendment standard for evaluating actions of law enforcement announced in County of Sacramento v. Lewis applies when law enforcement shoots but misses the intended target and an unknown occupant of the residence; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit departed from this court’s precedents by denying qualified immunity to petitioner and concluding that respondents were seized when petitioner fired shots but missed; (3) whether, if the Fourth Amendment standard applies, the 6th Circuit properly applied this court’s decision in Graham in concluding that petitioner was not entitled to qualified immunity when he fired shots in self-defense and not to apprehend a suspect; and (4) whether the 6th Circuit erred in determining that it was clearly established by precedent not from this court that respondents had been seized and petitioner used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
22-939 Frese v. Formella (1) Whether the First Amendment tolerates criminal prosecution for alleged defamation of a public official; and (2) whether New Hampshire’s common law of civil defamation is too vague to define a criminal restriction on speech, particularly where the state authorizes police departments to initiate prosecutions without the participation of a licensed attorney.
22-976 Garland v. Cargill Whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) because it is designed and intended for use in converting a rifle into a machinegun, i.e., into a weapon that fires “automatically more than one shot ... by a single function of the trigger.”
22-884 Garland v. Singh Whether the failure to receive, in a single document, all of the information specified in paragraph (1) of 8 U.S.C. § 1229(a) precludes an additional document from providing adequate notice under paragraph (2) of that section, and renders any in-absentia removal order subject, indefinitely, to rescission.
22-465 Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Int'l Paper Company Whether a bare declaratory judgment that determines liability but imposes no “costs” and awards no “damages” triggers the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act’s three-year statute of limitations for an “action for contribution for any response costs or damages.”
22-6500 Glossip v. Oklahoma (1) Whether a court may require a defendant to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact finder would have returned a guilty verdict to obtain relief for a violation of Brady v. Maryland; and (2) whether suppressed impeachment evidence of the state’s key witness is per se non-material under Brady because that witness’ credibility had been otherwise impeached at trial.
22-7466 Glossip v. Oklahoma (1) Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois; (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims; and (3) whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it.
22-734 Gomez-Vargas v. Garland Whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
22-1038 Gonzalez-Rivas v. Garland Whether the conclusion that undisputed facts do not satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard is a reviewable “question of law” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
22-773 Hargett v. Tennessee State Conference of the NAACP When, if ever, a party who obtains a preliminary injunction, but never secures a final merits determination, qualifies as a “prevailing party” eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
22-412 Harness v. Watson Whether any amendment to a law originally adopted for an impermissible racially discriminatory purpose, no matter how minor the amendment and no matter the historical context, cleanses the law of its racist origins for 14th Amendment purposes unless the party challenging the law can prove that the amendment itself was motivated by racial discrimination.
22-436 He v. Garland (1) Whether courts of appeals review de novo - as a question of law - or for substantial evidence - as a question of fact - a Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that established facts do not rise to the level of persecution; and (2) whether being prohibited by government officials from freely and openly practicing one's religion constitutes persecution as a matter of law.
22-827 Herrera v. U.S. Whether, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, petitioners were permitted to bring a facial constitutional challenge to their statute of conviction under the commerce clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution by filing a post-trial motion rather than a pretrial motion.
22-835 Hester v. Gentry Whether the 14th Amendment’s due process clause protects a fundamental right to pretrial liberty that prevents states from depriving a presumptively innocent person of physical liberty pending a criminal trial unless a court finds that the deprivation is necessary to protect public safety and/or reasonably assure the person’s appearance at future court proceedings.
22-631 Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. NexPoint Advisors, L.P. Whether Section 524(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, as its text suggests, states only the effect of a discharge on third parties’ liability for a debtor’s own debts or instead constrains the power of a court when confirming a plan of reorganization.
22-629 Holbrook v. Tennessee Valley Authority Whether federal courts have authority to review the Tennessee Valley Authority’s fidelity to its enabling statute, or whether the Authority’s rate-setting is excepted from all judicial review even when it sets rates in deliberate disregard of Congress’ clearly expressed policy directive.
22-978 Jackson v. Ohio Whether, when one police officer opens the door of a car and another officer looks through the open door for contraband, the police have conducted a “search” of the car within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
22-991 Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission Whether, under special review statute 15 U.S.C. § 78y, circuit courts on a petition for review of a Securities and Exchange Commission final order resolving an enforcement adjudication may “remand” back to the agency after overturning the final order because the proceedings were conducted in violation of law or the Constitution, where Section 78y expressly vests only the jurisdiction to “affirm,” “modify” or “set aside” the order and does not confer jurisdiction to remand.
22-693 Johnson v. Prentice Whether punitively depriving a prisoner in solitary confinement of virtually all exercise for three years notwithstanding the absence of a security justification violates the Eighth Amendment, or whether such a denial only violates the Eighth Amendment if it is imposed in response to an “utterly trivial infraction."
22-840 K.M. v. Adams Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s requirement that administrative remedies be exhausted before a judicial challenge under the act may be brought is jurisdictional, or rather a claim-processing rule that must be raised as an affirmative defense that may be waived.
22-867 Kerr v. Garland Whether the provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act providing that noncitizens may be removed, and are ineligible for many forms of discretionary relief from removal, if they have been “convicted of ... a crime of child abuse, child neglect, or child abandonment” encompasses a conviction for a state crime of child endangerment that criminalizes a negligent act creating a risk of harm to a child, even if no harm actually ensues.
22-912 King v. Brownback Whether the Federal Tort Claims Act’s judgment bar, which this court has repeatedly said functions in much the same way as the common-law doctrine of res judicata, nevertheless operates to bar claims brought together in the same action.
22-601 Lake v. NextEra Energy Capital Holdings Whether, consistent with the commerce clause, states may exercise their core police power to regulate public utilities by recognizing a preference for allowing incumbent utility companies to build new transmission lines.
22-652 Lazarenko v. U.S. (1) Whether property can be forfeited as substitute property under 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) without first determining whether it is “tainted” property that is derived from criminal activity or “untainted" property; and (2) whether untainted property can be forfeited when tainted property is available.
22-756 Linthicum v. Smith (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit manifestly departed from this court’s precedent by holding that authority that postdates the defendant’s alleged acts can clearly establish the law for purposes of overcoming qualified immunity; and (2) whether the 5th Circuit defined inmates’ rights to care for serious medical needs at an impermissibly high level of generality.
22-510 Lombardo v. City of St. Louis, Missouri Whether, when officers put a handcuffed and shackled person face-down on the floor and pushed into his back until he died, they are they entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because the person struggled to breathe before dying.
22-856 Marin v. Garland Whether the government’s removal of a noncitizen from the United States moots the noncitizen’s challenge in a petition for review of the agency’s denial in “withholding-only” immigration proceedings of deferral of removal or withholding of removal.
22-1033 Mazo v. Way Whether a state that permits political candidates to engage in core political speech on the ballot may restrict that speech on the basis of content and viewpoint without satisfying strict scrutiny.
21-1557 McClinton v. U.S. Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit a federal court from basing a criminal defendant’s sentence on conduct for which a jury has acquitted the defendant.
22-121 ML Genius Holdings LLC v. Google LLC Whether the Copyright Act’s preemption clause allows a business to invoke traditional state-law contract remedies to enforce a promise not to copy and use its content. CVSG: 5/23/2023
22-1018 Moeser v. Wisconsin Whether a sheriff (1) who indisputably did not make an oral or written oath or affirmation to anyone and (2) who falsely signed a pre-printed affidavit stating that he had been “first duly sworn on oath,” (3) which was in turn notarized by a fellow law enforcement officer who also falsely asserted in the jurat that the affidavit had been “sworn to,” nevertheless “supported [the warrant application] by Oath or affirmation” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment because “the [original] officer was impressed with th[e] obligation” to tell the truth.
22-277 Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (1) Whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring that social-media companies host third-party communications, and from regulating the time, place, and manner in which they do so; and (2) whether the First Amendment prohibits a state from requiring social-media companies to notify and provide an explanation to their users when they censor the user’s speech.
22-193 Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri Whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination as to all “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,” or whether its reach is limited to discriminatory employer conduct that courts determine causes materially significant disadvantages for employees. CVSG: 5/18/2023
22-842 National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo Whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy.
22-393 NetChoice, LLC v. Moody Whether Florida Senate Bill 7072 in its entirety, and its compelled disclosure provisions in particular, comply with the First Amendment.
22-555 NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton Whether the First Amendment prohibits viewpoint-, content-, or speaker-based laws restricting select websites from engaging in editorial choices about whether, and how, to publish and disseminate speech—or otherwise burdening those editorial choices through onerous operational and disclosure requirements.
22-669 NexPoint Advisors, L.P. v. Highland Capital Management, L.P. (1) Whether a bankruptcy court may exculpate third-party misconduct that falls short of gross negligence, on the theory that bankruptcy trustees have common-law immunity for such misconduct; and (2) whether a bankruptcy court may exculpate parties from ordinary post-bankruptcy business liabilities.
22-459 Ohio v. CSX Transportation (1) Whether 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b) preempts state laws that regulate the amount of time a stopped train may block a grade crossing; and (2) whether 49 U.S.C. § 20106(a)(2) saves from preemption state laws that regulate the amount of time a stopped train may block a grade crossing.
22-864 Ohio v. D.R. Whether the 14th Amendment’s due process clause entitles juvenile sex offenders to hearings at which courts have discretion to lift statutorily mandated sex-offender-registration obligations.
22-880 Ohio v. Yellen (1) Whether courts have jurisdiction over a state’s constitutional challenge to the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021’s tax mandate, which bars states from using Rescue Plan funds to “directly or indirectly offset a reduction in ... net tax revenue ... resulting from a change in law, regulation, or administrative interpretation;” and (2) whether the tax mandate is unconstitutional.
22-1006 Prime Insurance Company v. Wright Whether a trip of an empty truck between two locations in the same state qualifies as “transportation of property ... between a place in a State and ... a place in another State” for purposes of 49 U.S.C. § 31139(b)(1).
22-890 Quad Graphics v. North Carolina Department of Revenue (1) Whether the North Carolina Supreme Court was correct that state courts and taxing authorities no longer must follow McLeod v. J. E. Dilworth Co. because this court has implicitly overruled it; and (2) whether this court should overrule or retain the holding of Dilworth that a state may not tax sales that occur outside its borders.
22-730 Rop v. Federal Housing Finance Agency Whether the challenged decisions of the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency should be vacated because the Constitution does not permit the president to designate an acting official to exercise the powers of a principal officer indefinitely without the advice and consent of the Senate.
22-888 Rudisill v. McDonough Whether a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service under the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill is entitled to receive a total of 48 months of education benefits as between both programs, without first exhausting the Montgomery benefit in order to obtain the more generous Post-9/11 benefit.
22-955 Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle, Washington (1) Whether the court-created “futility” doctrine, which allows a federal court to decide a case removed from state court even though it lacks jurisdiction, is repugnant to Article III of the Constitution; and (2) whether application of the futility doctrine contravenes 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the plain language of which requires remand of the case to the state court from which it was removed.
22-859 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; and (3) whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.
22-118 Shaw v. U.S. (1) Whether the jury clauses of Article III and the Sixth Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment bar a court from imposing a more severe criminal sentence on the basis of conduct that a jury necessarily rejected, given its verdicts of acquittal on other counts at the same trial; (2) whether the Supreme Court‘s decision in United States v. Watts should be overruled; and (3) whether, in avoidance of the constitutional question, the rules of issue preclusion, as applied in federal criminal cases, bar imposition of an aggravated sentence on a factual predicate necessarily rejected by the jury at trial in the same case.
22-1074 Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California Whether a building-permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon simply because it is authorized by legislation.
22-815 Skaar v. McDonough Whether the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals has statutory or inherent authority to include veterans whose individual claims are not yet exhausted in a class seeking injunctive relief, where the court has jurisdiction over a named representative's claim.
22-321 Slockish v. Department of Transportation Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s mootness ruling warrants summary reversal where the panel clearly misapprehended governing law on mootness and on the authority of federal courts to order equitable relief affecting nonparties.
22-885 South Carolina v. Brewer Whether lab results requested not by law enforcement but by a forensic pathologist to assist in making a routine cause-of-death determination are testimonial in nature and their admission without cross-examination of the analyst violates a criminal defendant’s right to confrontation as articulated in Crawford v. Washington and subsequent decisions.
22-824 Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia v. Belya (1) Whether the First Amendment’s church autonomy doctrine and its “ministerial exception” should be understood as an immunity from judicial interference in internal religious leadership disputes covered by the doctrine, or instead as a mere defense against liability; and (2) whether a minister’s defamation claims against his church arising from internal church disciplinary proceedings are barred by the church autonomy doctrine or may instead proceed under the “neutral principles” approach developed for church property disputes.
22-897 The Ohio State University v. Gonzales Whether, or to what extent, a claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 accrues after the date on which the alleged injury occurred.
22-896 The Ohio State University v. Snyder-Hill (1) Whether, or to what extent, a claim under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 accrues after the date on which the alleged injury occurred; and (2) whether, or to what extent, Title IX’s implied private right of action extends to individuals who are not current or prospective students or employees.
22-982 Thornell v. Jones Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit violated this court’s precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington when it disregarded the district court’s factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the state’s rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief.
22-942 Tingley v. Ferguson (1) Whether a law that censors conversations between counselors and clients as “unprofessional conduct” violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment; and (2) whether a law that primarily burdens religious speech is neutral and generally applicable, and if so, whether the court should overrule Employment Division v. Smith.
22-935 Transervice Logistics v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund Whether a notice of termination for a collective bargaining agreement must contain a clear statement of an intent to terminate the agreement, or must contain specific wording only when the agreement requires it.
22-1079 Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company Whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.
22-926 U.S. Bank National Association v. Windstream Holdings (1) Whether the lack of statutory and constitutional basis for the equitable mootness doctrine, combined with its demonstrated potential for abuse, requires it to be abolished; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s rule that an appeal from a substantially consummated bankruptcy plan is automatically equitably moot if the appellant did not pursue a stay, regardless of a stay’s availability or any other equitable factors, undermines any prudential purpose for the doctrine.
22-915 U.S. v. Rahimi Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
22-914 Waleski v. Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP Whether a federal court may assume “hypothetical” subject matter jurisdiction to reach a decision on issues of state law against the party challenging the court’s jurisdiction, when the very issue presented on appeal is that of federal subject matter jurisdiction.
22-1078 Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy Whether the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations for civil actions, 17 U.S.C. 507(b), precludes retrospective relief for acts that occurred more than three years before the filing of a lawsuit.
22-1071 Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. Department of Homeland Security (1) Whether the statutory terms defining nonimmigrant visas in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15) are mere threshold entry requirements that cease to apply once a noncitizen is admitted, or whether they persist and dictate the terms of a noncitizen’s stay in the United States; and (2) whether, when Congress has enacted a statutory scheme governing a class of noncitizens in the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Department of Homeland Security’s power to extend employment authorization to that class of noncitizens through regulation is limited to implementing the terms of that statutory scheme.
22-666 Wilkinson v. Garland Whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or whether this determination is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).