Breaking News

Petitions We’re Watching

View Petitions by Category.

Petitions We're Watching
Docket Case Page Issue(s)
23-1094 AT&T Services v. Bugielski Whether a fiduciary to an employee benefit plan causes the plan to engage in a prohibited transaction under Section 406(a)(1)(C) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by entering a routine, arm’s-length agreement for plan services.
23-1072 Bahlul v. U.S. (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(3) requires recusal when a federal judge is assigned to a case involving the same parties, same facts, and same issues as a case in which they previously appeared as counsel for the government; and (2) whether Section 455(b)(3) provides the exclusive basis for federal judges’ disqualification based upon their previous government service, or whether recusal is still independently warranted under Section 455(a), where a judge’s previous government service gives rise to reasonable questions about their impartiality.
23-942 Campbell v. Kares (1) Whether Michigan’s statute allowing a prisoner to request DNA testing calls for a “judicial reexamination” of the defendant’s conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2) to statutorily toll the habeas limitations period, or is more akin to a discovery request; and (2) whether Stephen Kares “properly file[d]” his DNA motion under state law, where he did not even attempt to satisfy the minimal pleading requirements set forth in Michigan’s post-conviction DNA testing statute.
23-1007 Cunningham v. Cornell University Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.
23-1096 Davis v. Colorado Whether, once counsel has been appointed for an indigent defendant, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant the same right to continued representation by that counsel as is enjoyed by defendants affluent enough to retain counsel.
23-1229 Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, LLC Whether venue for challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program lies exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or, alternatively, are “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”
23-1134 Habelt v. iRhythm Technologies Whether a named plaintiff who initiated a suit from which he was never dismissed or removed, who retains a financial stake in the litigation’s outcome, and who could be precluded from pursuing further redress has standing to appeal.
23-167 Hamm v. Smith (1) Whether Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas mandate that courts deem the standard of “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” for determining intellectual disability in Atkins v. Virginia satisfied when an offender’s lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hall and Moore, or at least clarify that they permit courts to consider multiple IQ scores and the probability that an offender’s IQ does not fall at the bottom of the lowest IQ score’s error range.
23-976 Henning v. Snowden Whether the court of appeals erred in allowing a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in this case, where the claim arises from an arrest made outside the home, in a place open to the public, pursuant to a warrant.
23-1084 Hile v. Michigan (1) Whether Michigan’s constitutional amendment barring direct and indirect public financial support for parochial and other nonpublic schools violates the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause; and (2) whether the failure of a ballot proposal that would have authorized school vouchers and partially repealed the constitutional amendment purges the amendment of its religious animus for purpose of the equal protection clause.
23-1132 Lyft v. California Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state law authorizing public officials to pursue claims for individualized monetary relief in court for the benefit of individuals who agreed to resolve those claims in arbitration, thereby circumventing those individuals’ arbitration agreements.
23-1004 Mendoza v. Lumpkin (1) Whether a federal claim is “adjudicated on the merits” in state court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) so long as the state court resolves the claim on substantive grounds, even if the petitioner did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in denying habeas relief on petitioner’s claim that his trial lawyers provided ineffective assistance by presenting a psychologist at the capital-sentencing phase who testified that petitioner lacked a moral compass, was a danger in and out of prison, and that the traditional mitigation factors were not present.
23-828 Moylan v. Guerrero Whether the Supreme Court of Guam’s advisory opinion that a Guam abortion law passed in 1990 had been impliedly repealed constitutes a permissible exercise of the “judicial authority” that Congress has vested in that court under 48 U.S.C. §1424(a)(1).
23-926 No on E, San Franciscans Opposing the Affordable Housing Production Act v. Chiu (1) Whether requiring political advertisers to name their donors’ donors within their advertisements advances any important or compelling state interest; and (2) whether San Francisco’s secondary donor speech mandate violates the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.
23-1067 Oklahoma v. Environmental Protection Agency Whether a final action by the Environmental Protection Agency taken pursuant to its Clean Air Act authority with respect to a single state or region may be challenged only in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit because the agency published the action in the same Federal Register notice as actions affecting other states or regions and claimed to use a consistent analysis for all states.
23-1068 PacifiCorp v. Environmental Protection Agency Whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s disapproval of a state implementation plan may only be challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit under 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1) if the agency packages that disapproval with disapprovals of other states’ plans and purports to use a consistent method in evaluating the state-specific determinations in those plans.
23-1050 Sanchez v. U.S. Whether a timely filed 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) petition may be amended to cure a pleading deficiency after the 30-day filing period has run, or whether Section 853(n)(2)’s 30-day deadline for filing a petition precludes any amendment after the filing deadline has expired.
23-952 Shell PLC v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (1) Whether claims seeking damages for the effects of interstate and international emissions on the global climate are beyond the limits of state law and thus preempted under the federal Constitution; and (2) whether the Clean Air Act preempts state-law claims predicated on damaging interstate emissions.
23-947 Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.
23-1095 Thompson v. U.S. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.
23-1130 Uber Technologies v. California Whether the Federal Arbitration Act allows state officials to litigate claims for monetary relief on behalf of people who agreed to arbitrate those claims.
23-969 Walen v. Burgum (1) Whether the district court erred by applying the incorrect legal standard when deciding that the North Dakota legislature had good reasons and a strong basis to believe two majority-Native-American subdistricts were required by the Voting Rights Act; (2) whether the district court erred by improperly weighing the evidence and granting inferences in favor of the moving party at summary judgment instead of setting the case for trial; and (3) whether the district court erred when it found that the legislature’s attempted compliance with Section 2 of the VRA can justify racial sorting of voters into districts.
23-914 Zilka v. City of Philadelphia Tax Review Board Whether the commerce clause requires states to consider a taxpayer’s burden in light of the state tax scheme as a whole when crediting a taxpayer’s out-of-state tax liability, or permits states to credit out-of-state state and local tax liabilities as discrete tax burdens.