Breaking News

Petitions We’re Watching

View Petitions by Category.

Petitions We're Watching
Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22-429 Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer Whether a self-appointed Americans with Disabilities Act “tester” has Article III standing to challenge a place of public accommodation’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she lacks any intention of visiting that place of public accommodation.
22-401 Alaska v. Haaland Whether the federal Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, which sought to preserve Alaska’s traditional police powers over wildlife, grants federal agencies plenary authority to preempt state law regulating how people hunt.
22-501 Alonzo v. Schwab Whether the 14th Amendment prohibits intentional racial discrimination in redistricting where the minority voters discriminated against are not sufficiently numerous to form a majority of eligible voters in a single-member district.
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.”
22-639 Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew Whether the Commissioner for Patents’ exercise of the Patent and Trademark Office Director’s authority pursuant to an internal agency delegation violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.
22-472 Association des Éleveurs de Canards et D’oies du Quebéc v. Bonta (1) Whether a state may avoid express ingredient preemption under the Poultry Products Inspection Act by banning the sale of poultry products based on the only way their primary ingredient can be produced; (2) whether a state law that makes it physically impossible to produce and sell a poultry product in compliance with both state and federal law is preempted under the doctrine of impossibility preemption, or whether a state may avoid preemption under the “stop-selling” rationale this court rejected in Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett; and (3) whether a state’s sales ban of wholesome poultry products based exclusively on the farming practice by which the animals were raised in other states and countries violates this court’s dormant commerce clause doctrines.
22-430 Barton v. Texas (1) Whether the criminalization of expressive electronic communications in Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) implicates the First Amendment; and (2) whether Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) is unconstitutionally overbroad.
22-656 Bentley v. U.S. Whether, when a defendant shows on collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 that a prior conviction is no longer a valid predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, a district court may deny resentencing on the basis of an alternative prior conviction that was not specifically identified by the government as an ACCA predicate at the original sentencing, or whether the court must instead order resentencing to give the defendant an opportunity to challenge the alternative prior conviction’s qualification as an ACCA predicate in a context where the government bears the burden.
22-361 BP P.L.C. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore (1) Whether federal common law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under state law.
22-250 Brach v. Newsom Whether a case is moot under Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement when the governor rescinds the offending policy after it is challenged in court, but the declaration of emergency remains in place and the governor retains the authority to reinstate the policy.
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.
22-529 Cantero v. Bank of America Whether the National Bank Act preempts the application of state escrow-interest laws to national banks.
22-425 Carnahan v. Maloney Whether individual members of Congress have Article III standing to sue an executive agency to compel it to disclose information that the members have requested under 5 U.S.C. § 2954.
22-634 Carson v. Hyland Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 abrogates the Supreme Court’s holdings that payments in common-fund class actions to compensate representative plaintiffs for their personal services are inequitable, “illegal” and “decidedly objectionable."
22-312 Chapman v. Doe (1) Whether Clerk Chapman was properly denied quasi-judicial immunity because the judge could not recall anything about the case, including whether the judge directed her to notify the parents when an unemancipated minor filed an application for a judicial bypass to have an abortion; (2) whether it was clearly established in 2018 that providing prehearing notification to an unemancipated minor’s parent of a judicial bypass procedure violates the minor’s clearly established rights; and (3) whether, in light of this court’s intervening decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., the court should remand to determine whether Doe can show she has a right to a judicial bypass procedure without notice to her parents.
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.
22-497 Chen v. Texas (1) Whether a law that criminalizes expressive speech is immunized from any First Amendment scrutiny if it also criminalizes non-expressive conduct; and (2) whether a law that punishes the repeated sending of electronic communications with intent and likely result to “harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embar- rass, or offend” another is unconstitutionally overbroad.
22-490 Chestnut v. Allen Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) limitations and needlessly overturned a state death sentence on an insubstantial premise that respondent’s mental health evidence was not afforded “meaningful consideration and effect” when the judge stated at sentencing that he had considered all the mental health evidence but did not explicitly reference respondent’s eating disorder.
22-495 Chevron Corp. v. San Mateo County, California Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.
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.
22-278 City of Ocala, Florida v. Rojas Whether psychic or emotional offense allegedly caused by observation of religious messages is an injury sufficient to confer standing under Article III of the Constitution, including where the offended party deliberately seeks out the exposure in question.
22-663 Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (1) Whether a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule, which prohibits a covered lender from continuing to make preauthorized attempts to withdraw loan repayments from a consumer’s bank account after two consecutive attempts are denied for insufficient funds, should be vacated because it was promulgated by CFPB Director Richard Cordray while shielded from removal by President Donald Trump under a statutory provision this court later held is unconstitutional; and (2) whether the rule should be vacated because the prohibited conduct falls outside the statutory definition of unfair or abusive conduct.
22-448 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statute providing funding to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 12 U.S.C. § 5497, violates the appropriations clause in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution, and in vacating a regulation promulgated at a time when the Bureau was receiving such funding.
22-620 Cox v. Maryland State Board of Elections Whether the Maryland Circuit Court for Montgomery County violated the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution when it suspended the laws enacted by the Maryland General Assembly as to how elections for U.S. Representatives are conducted, namely the opening and tabulation of mail-in ballots more than a month prior to the date allowed by statute.
22-18 Cuker Interactive, LLC v. Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Whether a federal court deciding a state-law issue in a bankruptcy case must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules or federal choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs.
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.
22-418 Deveraux v. Montana Whether a trial court commits structural error, requiring automatic reversal under the Sixth Amendment, when it seats a biased juror after erroneously denying a for-cause challenge to that juror.
22-517 Dickenson v. Johnson (1) Whether district courts may be required to use the inherently subjective and effectively unreviewable factors to determine common-fund fee awards set out in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc. despite the court’s rejection of the that approach in Perdue v. Kenny; (2) whether district courts may be required to calculate common-fund attorney’s fees only as a percentage of the fund, or may instead award fees based on the attorney’s lodestar; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit may mandate that district courts adopt a 25% “benchmark” for percent-of-fund attorney’s fee awards.
22-274 Donziger v. U.S. (1) Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42(a)(2) authorizes judicial appointments of inferior executive officers; and (2) if so, whether such appointments violate the appointments clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
22-534 Eagleson v. St. Anthony Hospital (1) Whether spending clause legislation, including 42 U.S.C. § 1396u-2(f), can impliedly create private rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) whether, if so, Section 1936u-2(f)’s requirement that states include a clause requiring timely payment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(37)(A) in their contracts with managed care organizations unambiguously gives states a statutory duty, not just a contractual right, to ensure that those organizations pay providers in accordance with that contract provision, and also unambiguously gives providers a private right to enforce that duty.
22-367 Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito Abraham Rosa Whether pre-bankruptcy unsecured claims for just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's takings clause are uniquely non-dischargeable, unlike every other type of unsecured claim.
22-396 Fischer v. Federal Express Corp. Whether a federal court has the authority, absent general personal jurisdiction over the defendant or the defendant’s consent, to maintain a Fair Labor Standards Act collective action that includes opt-in plaintiffs who worked for the defendant outside the state where the court is located.
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.
22-513 Geddes v. Weber County, Utah (1) Whether the test of objective reasonableness applicable to a claim of excessive force enunciated by the court in Kingsley v. Hendrickson (decided under the 14th Amendment) is the same standard as the test of objective reasonableness enunciated by the court in Graham v. Connor (decided under the Fourth Amendment) as applied to the specific circumstances presented in the context of an individual being held in a detention facility; and (2) whether, under Kingsley, the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment against use of objectively unreasonable force end and those afforded by the 14th Amendment begin no later than the point at which custody has been relinquished by an arresting officer to a detention facility.
22-583 Greebel v. U.S. Whether lump-sum compensatory payments to an individual, such as those made pursuant to a retirement plan, qualify as “earnings” subject to the Consumer Credit Protection Act’s garnishment limitations.
22-580 Hamm v. Smith Whether, in an Eighth Amendment method-of-execution case, an alternative method of execution is feasible and readily implemented merely because the executing state has statutorily authorized the method.
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.
22-488 Hemphill v. New York Whether the improper admission of the out-of-court statement by the alternative suspect in Hemphill v. New York was “so unimportant and insignificant” as to be harmless under Chapman v. California.
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.
22-474 Huffman v. Harris (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in finding that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment imposes an obligation on county sheriffs to release a dangerous schizophrenic inmate whose criminal charges remained pending and whose court proceedings were stalled, and then denying qualified immunity in the absence of clearly established law; and (2) whether the 5th Circuit erred in imposing an obligation on jailers to inquire as to the status of an inmate’s court proceedings without providing any guidance or parameters for compliance.
21-1281 Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy (1) What the appropriate standard is for determining whether a patent claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept under step one of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101; (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; and (3) whether it is proper to apply 35 U.S.C. § 112 considerations to determine whether a patent claims eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
22-447 Johnson & Johnson v. California (1) Whether a robust fair notice standard applies to California’s Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law given the severe civil penalties at stake, the risk of chilling protected speech, and the criminal penalties involved; and (2) whether Ethicon had fair notice that it faced hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties under these statutes for materials sent to California, but not proven to have reached consumers.
22-431 Jordan v. Lamanna Whether a federal habeas petitioner seeking relief on the basis of a violation of the public trial clause of the Sixth Amendment can demonstrate an “unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) in the absence of a Supreme Court precedent involving analytically indistinguishable facts.
22-388 Keister v. Bell (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in relying on the government’s (or its delegee’s) intent to regulate speech in determining that public sidewalks adjacent to government buildings are not traditional public forums, in conflict with decisions by this court and numerous circuits; and (2) whether the status of a public sidewalk as a protected traditional public forum should be determined by the text, history and tradition of the First Amendment rather than by an indeterminate multi-factor balancing test.
22-603 Kelley-Lomax v. City of Chicago, Illinois Whether a municipality, consistent with the Fourth and 14th Amendments, may sell or destroy property seized for safekeeping from an arrestee, merely because the arrestee is held in custody as a pre-trial detainee for more than 30 days.
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.
22-545 Lewis v. Akron Board of Zoning Appeals Whether, when a person wants to exercise the deeply and objectively rooted right to use liberty and property for the non-economic purpose of saving lives, the standard of review amounts to “not utterly arbitrary."
22-611 Lindke v. Freed Whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.
22-644 Lomax v. U.S. (1) Whether, pursuant to Kisor v. Wilkie, courts are obligated first to determine whether a sentencing guideline is ambiguous before affording deference to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary interpreting the guideline; and (2) whether courts may defer to the Sentencing Commission’s commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2) that expands the guideline's definition of “crime of violence," which includes only specified completed offenses, to include inchoate offenses.
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.
22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (1) Whether, under a proper application of Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Magnuson-Stevens Act implicitly grants the National Marine Fisheries Service the power to force domestic vessels to pay the salaries of the monitors they must carry; and (2) whether the court should overrule Chevron, or at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.
22-63 Marshal v. Texas (1) Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ application of the equitable doctrine of laches constitutes an independent and adequate state-law ground that bars review of petitioner’s constitutional claims; (2) whether the court's application of laches violated petitioner's right to due process of law; and (3) whether the prosecution is estopped from relying on the doctrine of laches when its misconduct caused the delay in filing the habeas corpus application.
22-664 May v. Shinn Whether a judgment rendered after a habeas petitioner has been unconditionally released with no collateral consequences – and where the state does not dispute that the petitioner was no longer “in custody” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 – is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
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.
22-417 Metzgar v. U.A. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 22 Pension Fund Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974’s anti-cutback rule, 29 U.S.C. 1054(g), prohibits plan trustees and other plan sponsors from eliminating participants’ early retirement benefits through a reinterpretation of the plan to disallow previously permitted postretirement employment, thus accomplishing through a plan interpretation what they could not do through the plan’s formal amendment process.
21-867 Midwest Air Traffic Control Service v. Badilla Whether state-law tort claims that arise out of the uniquely federal sphere of the military’s combat operations are preempted by the interests embodied in the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception.
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.
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.
22-434 Moore v. Texas (1) Whether a law that criminalizes expressive speech is immunized from any First Amendment scrutiny if it also criminalizes non-expressive conduct; and (2) whether a law that punishes the repeated sending of electronic communications with intent and likely result to “harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend” another is unconstitutionally overbroad.
22-481 Moore v. U.S. Whether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person’s home and curtilage is a Fourth Amendment search.
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.
22-660 Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC Whether, following the burden-shifting framework that governs cases under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief, or whether the lack of “retaliatory intent” is part of the affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof.
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.
22-293 Novak v. City of Parma, Ohio (1) Whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity for arresting an individual based solely on speech parodying the government, so long as no case has previously held the particular speech is protected; and (2) whether the court should reconsider the doctrine of qualified immunity.
22-374 Olhausen v. Arriva Medical, LLC Whether a False Claims Act defendant alleged to have “knowingly” violated a provision of federal law can escape liability by articulating, after the fact, an objectively reasonable interpretation of the provision under which its conduct would have been lawful.
22-324 O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier Whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social-media account, when the official uses the account to feature their job and communicate about job-related matters with the public, but does not do so pursuant to any governmental authority or duty.
22-484 Pierluisi v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (1) What standard of review governs a district court’s evaluation of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico’s determination that Puerto Rican legislation “would impair or defeat the purposes of” the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act and its review of that legislation for consistency with the fiscal plan; (2) whether this standard of review requires the Board to reasonably and contemporaneously explain its decisions without relying on post-hoc justifications; and (3) whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the Title III Court’s holding that the Board’s determinations regarding Puerto Rican Acts 47, 82, 138, and 176 were not arbitrary and capricious.
22-340 Pulsifer v. U.S. Whether a defendant satisfies the criteria in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018 in order to qualify for the federal drug-sentencing “safety valve” provision so long as he does not have (a) more than four criminal history points, (b) a three-point offense, and (c) a two-point offense, or whether the defendant satisfies the criteria so long as he does not have (a), (b), or (c).
22-384 Randel v. Rabun County School District Whether the existence of a state post-deprivation process precludes a procedural due process claim only where a pre-deprivation process that satisfied constitutional standards would be impracticable, such as because the deprivation was a random or unauthorized act of an errant state official, or in any case in which, even though compliance with constitutional standards in a pre-deprivation process was practicable, the state post-deprivation process provides some form of remedy for the constitutional deficiency of the pre-deprivation process.
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.
22-524 Shell Oil Products Company LLC v. Rhode Island Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.
22-450 Shields v. Kentucky When, if ever, a preliminary hearing provides an “adequate opportunity” for cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment's confrontation clause.
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.
22-558 Soto v. Texas (1) Whether a law that criminalizes expressive speech is immunized from First Amendment scrutiny if it also criminalizes non-expressive conduct; and (2) whether a law that punishes the repeated sending of electronic communications with intent and likely result to "harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend” another is unconstitutionally overbroad.
22-502 Spring Valley Produce v. Forrest Whether a debtor in bankruptcy may discharge liability for unlawfully violating a nonsegregated statutory trust.
22-554 St. John v. Jones Whether, or in what circumstances, a court may approve a settlement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2) when it pays a substantial cy pres award to third parties from the settlement fund.
21-1550 Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Boulder County (1) Whether federal common law necessarily and exclusively governs claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of interstate greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate; and (2) whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over claims necessarily and exclusively governed by federal common law but labeled as arising under state law.
22-523 Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1442 precludes removal by federal officers and persons acting under them unless the removing defendant’s colorable federal defense arises out of the defendant’s federal duty; and (2) whether a federal district court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over nominally state law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effect of transboundary greenhouse gas emissions on the global climate, on the ground that federal law necessarily and exclusively governs such claims.
22-37 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC Whether a generic drug manufacturer's FDA-approved label that carves out all of the language the brand manufacturer has identified as covering its patented uses can be held liable on a theory that its label still intentionally encourages infringement of those carved-out uses.
22-22 Tropp v. Travel Sentry Whether claims in patents for dual-access airline luggage locks that recite physical rather than computer-processing steps are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as interpreted in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International.
22-70 Tyson Foods v. Buljic Whether a private actor that assists the federal government in securing the national food supply during a national emergency, under extensive federal supervision, is entitled to removal under the federal-officer removal statute.
22-455 Tyson Foods v. Glenn Whether a private actor that assists the federal government in securing the national food supply during a national emergency, under extensive federal supervision and direction, is entitled to removal under the federal-officer removal statute.
22-593 U.S. ex rel. Sheldon v. Allergan Sales, LLC Whether and when a defendant’s contemporaneous subjective understanding or beliefs about the lawfulness of its conduct are relevant to whether it “knowingly” violated the False Claims Act.
22-571 U.S. ex rel. Sy v. Oakland Physicians Medical Center, LLC Whether a district court may decline a discretionary extension of time to effect service and, in effect, dismiss with prejudice a relator’s individual False Claims Act retaliation claim due to the operation of the applicable statute of limitations, when it repeatedly granted the government’s requested extensions of time for the qui tam complaint to remain under seal.
22-464 U.S. v. Hakim Whether a defendant’s erroneous pretrial self-representation categorically constitutes structural error, thereby requiring automatic vacatur of the convictions, where the defendant had counsel at trial and did not irretrievably lose any rights or defenses in the interim.
22-582 U.S. v. Hernandez-Calvillo Whether the federal criminal prohibition against conspiring to encourage or induce unlawful immigration, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (v)(I), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment over- breadth grounds.
22-360 Veteran Warriors v. McDonough (1) Whether courts can defer to the construction of a statute by the Department of Veterans Affairs without first considering whether the statute permits a pro-veteran construction pursuant to the pro-veteran canon; and (2) whether Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council should be clarified or replaced to protect canons of construction, including the pro-veteran canon, from becoming a nullity.
22-149 Weisfeld v. Scott Whether, in a suit seeking prospective relief relating to the enforcement of particular provisions of Texas’s election law, Texas’s chief election officer may invoke sovereign immunity solely because local officials carry out those provisions day-to-day, or whether a state official’s authority over enforcement of the entire statutory scheme is sufficient to trigger Ex parte Young’s exception to state sovereign immunity.
21-1448 Wells v. McCallister Whether a homestead exemption to which a debtor is entitled on the date he files for bankruptcy can vanish if the debtor sells his homestead during the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings and does not reinvest the proceeds in another homestead.
22-456 Wilson v. McDonough Whether a complaint that states a claim may be dismissed on the grounds that a plaintiff waived an argument against dismissal by failing to make the argument in opposition to a motion to dismiss.
22-531 Wofsy v. de Fontbrune (1) Whether, under the first of the four copyright fair-use factors, a scholarly book that is “offered for sale” for use in academic and related settings is a commercial or non-commercial work; (2) whether, for purposes of the second fair-use factor, a work’s level of creativity is a distinct inquiry from whether that work is sufficiently original to be copyrightable, or whether a work that meets the threshold for copyrightability is automatically considered creative; and (3) whether, where a representational photograph is reproduced in its entirety because a partial photograph would not be a useful depiction of its subject, the third fair-use factor is neutral or weighs against fair use.
22-533 Yassin v. Weyker Whether state and local police officers are immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 whenever they are federally cross-deputized as members of joint state-federal task forces.
22-566 Yeatman v. Hyland Whether, or in what circumstances, a court may approve a settlement as “fair, reasonable, and adequate” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) or certify a class under Rule 23(b) when it pays a cy pres award to third parties from the settlement fund.