| 19-347 |
AER Advisors Inc. v. Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC |
Whether the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C. § 5318(g)(3)(A), confers (a) absolute immunity for any disclosure or (b) immunity only if the disclosure is an objectively “possible criminal violation,” is made in good faith, or is not fraudulent; and (2) whether in a diversity case, the transferee court,
which is receiving jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (i.e., only because of witness convenience), must apply the law of the transferor court (including federal law
allowing for an immunity defense), or the law of its own
court. |
| 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. |
| 18-9674 |
Andrus v. Texas |
Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced
in Strickland v. Washington, fails to protect the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial
and the 14th Amendment right to due process when, in death-penalty cases
involving flagrantly deficient performance, courts can deny relief following a
truncated “no prejudice” analysis that does not account for the evidence amassed in
a habeas proceeding and relies on a trial record shaped by trial counsel’s ineffective
representation. |
| 18-1455 |
Archdiocese of Washington v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority |
(1) Whether the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority’s policy of refusing to accept advertisements that promote or oppose religion or reflect a religious perspective violates the First Amendment; and (2) whether that discrimination against religious speech violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. |
| 19-605 |
Arizona v. Martin |
Whether, when a jury expressly states it is “unable to agree”
on a defendant’s guilt for a greater offense and convicts the defendant of a lesser offense, and the defendant successfully appeals his conviction, the
hung-jury rule permits retrial of the greater offense or
Green v. United States instead bars retrial of that offense. |
| 19-645 |
Arizona v. Nunez-Diaz |
(1) Whether the respondent, Hector Sebastion Nunez-Diaz, is categorically barred
from establishing prejudice under Strickland v. Washington for a
Padilla v. Kentucky / Lee v. United States claim because, as an
unauthorized alien, he is without any legal
right to remain in the United States; and (2) whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred
in finding Strickland prejudice, where inter
alia there was no evidence that the respondent
had a viable defense either to the criminal
charges or deportation. |
| 19-333 |
Arlene’s Flowers Inc. v. Washington |
(1) Whether a state violates a floral designer’s First Amendment rights to free exercise and free speech by forcing her to take part in and create custom floral art celebrating same-sex weddings or by acting based on hostility toward her religious beliefs; and (2) whether the free exercise clause’s prohibition on religious hostility applies to the executive branch. |
| 19-402 |
Baldwin v. U.S. |
(1) Whether National Cable & Telecommunications Association v.
Brand X Internet Services should be overruled; and (2) whether a federal agency’s
statutory construction should receive any deference when it contradicts
a court’s precedent and disregards traditional
tools of statutory interpretation, such as the common-law presumption canon. |
| 19-510 |
Banegas-Gomez v. Barr |
Whether the government may commence removal proceedings by issuing a notice to appear that omits the proceedings' time and place. |
| 19-807 |
Bank Melli v. Bennett |
(1) Whether the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act requires that the respondent, Michael Bennett, actually own the assets at issue, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held
and as the United States has repeatedly urged, or whether
the statute instead permits execution even absent ownership, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held below; and (2) whether TRIA permits plaintiffs to execute judgments against a foreign sovereign’s juridically separate
instrumentalities, contrary to the presumption of separate status established by the Supreme Court’s precedents and
the nation’s treaty obligations. |
| 19-622 |
Bell v. Pennsylvania |
Whether a motorist’s assertion of his Fourth
Amendment right to refuse consent to a warrantless
blood test may be used as evidence of guilt for the offense of driving under the influence. |
| 18-1019 |
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. |
Whether a state, consistent with the 14th Amendment, may require an ultrasound as part of informed consent at least 18 hours before an abortion. |
| 19-546 |
Brownback v. King |
Whether a final judgment
in favor of the United States in an action brought under
Section 1346(b)(1) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, on the ground that a private person
would not be liable to the claimant under state tort law
for the injuries alleged, bars a claim under Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics that is brought by the same
claimant, based on the same injuries, and against the
same governmental employees whose acts gave rise to
the claimant’s FTCA claim. |
| 18-1218 |
Buchwald Capital Advisors LLC v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians |
Whether the Bankruptcy Code abrogates the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes. |
| 19-350 |
Busch v. Guertin |
(1) Whether the 14th Amendment’s constitutional
right to “bodily integrity” extends to encapsulate a
right to be protected by state regulators from a foreseeable risk of harm from exposure to contaminants
in public drinking water, or to be free from allegedly
false statements by an agency spokesperson; (2) whether, if so, such a bodily-integrity right was
clearly established at the time the defendant officials
were fulfilling their official duties; and (3) whether mere alleged mistakes and regulatory
inaction by state regulators, or allegedly false statements by an agency spokesperson, are sufficiently
“conscience shocking” to strip a government official of
qualified immunity. |
| 19-229 |
C.D. v. Natick Public School District |
Whether a school district’s decision to educate a child with disabilities outside the regular classroom violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s mainstreaming mandate. |
| 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. |
| 19-311 |
Cannon v. Seay |
(1) Whether, in review of a state decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
when a federal appellate court must determine if double-jeopardy protection bars retrial after a mistrial is granted over a defendant’s objection based upon the absence of a critical prosecution witness, the required strict scrutiny applied to the legal determination of manifest necessity constrains in equal
or greater measure the deference universally accorded a trial court’s fact-finding; and (2) whether in granting relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit egregiously failed to apply clearly
established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Washington and accord deference to the state court’s ruling finding manifest necessity for mistrial when it resolved that omission of a reference to consideration of alternatives in the court’s oral ruling made the ruling fatally insufficient even though the record shows the state court did not act rashly in granting a mistrial, but pursued a cautious approach
that included suspending the trial to allow a search for the missing witness prior to considering and granting the state’s mistrial motion. |
| 19-453 |
Cargill v. Doe I |
(1) Whether the presumption against extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute is displaced by allegations that a U.S. company generally conducted oversight of its foreign operations at its headquarters and made operational and financial decisions there, even though the conduct alleged to violate international law occurred in – and the plaintiffs suffered their injuries in – a foreign country; and (2) whether a domestic corporation is subject to
liability in a private action under the Alien Tort Statute. |
| 19-619 |
Cisco Systems Inc. v. SRI Int'l Inc. |
Whether patent claims that recite only the abstract
idea of collecting and analyzing data are patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank International. |
| 19-205 |
City of Flint, Michigan v. Guertin |
(1) Whether the substantive-due-process right to bodily integrity should be extended to protect the public at large from exposure to an environmental toxin resulting from governmental policy decisions; (2) whether it is plausible that a municipal officer’s actions were conscience-shocking when the respondents admit that the policy decisions were based on the advice and direction of the controlling state regulatory agency and with the advice of expert advisors; (3) whether, if the answer to the first or second question is “yes,” the right was clearly established; and (4) whether the city, which was under the substantially complete control and authority of the state under Michigan’s “Local Financial Stability and Choice Act of 2012,” was an arm of the state and thus entitled to immunity from suit under the 11th Amendment. |
| 19-710 |
Connecticut Fine Wine and Spirits, LLC v. Seagull |
Whether Section 1 of the Sherman Act preempts
state laws facilitating unsupervised private
price-fixing, such as Connecticut's—which requires private beer, wine and liquor wholesalers to “post” their prices in advance so
that all competing wholesalers can match them, to
“hold” those prices for a month and to refrain from offering quantity discounts to retailers; the
wholesalers in this scheme determine not only the case
prices paid by retailers, but also the minimum bottle
prices paid by consumers. |
| 19A785 |
Department of Homeland Security v. New York |
Whether the Department of Homeland Security may implement a rule that announced a new approach to the determination whether a noncitizen is likely to become a "public charge" and therefore is ineligible to enter the United States while it appeals injunctions that prevent the rule from going into effect nationwide. |
| 19-608 |
Elster v. City of Seattle, Washington |
(1) Whether a levy that forces property owners
to fund other individuals’ campaign
donations implicates the First Amendment’s
compelled-subsidy doctrine; and (2) whether a compelled subsidy of speech
should be examined under rational-basis
review, as the decision below concluded, or
whether a higher standard of review is
appropriate. |
| 19-706 |
Facebook Inc. v. Patel |
(1) Whether a court can find Article III standing
based on its conclusion that a statute protects a
concrete interest, without determining that the
plaintiff suffered a personal, real-world injury from
the alleged statutory violation; (2) whether a court can find Article III standing
based on a risk that a plaintiff’s personal information
could be misused in the future, without concluding
that the possibility of misuse is imminent; and (3) whether a court can certify a class without deciding a question of law that is relevant to determining whether common issues predominate under Rule
23. |
| 19-351 |
Federal Republic of Germany v. Philipp |
(1) Whether the “expropriation exception” of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which abrogates foreign sovereign immunity when
“rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” provides jurisdiction over
claims that a foreign sovereign has violated international human-rights law when taking property
from its own national within its own borders, even
though such claims do not implicate the established international law governing states’ responsibility for takings of property; and (2) whether the doctrine of international comity is
unavailable in cases against foreign sovereigns,
even in cases of considerable historical and political significance to the foreign sovereign, and even
when the foreign nation has a domestic framework for addressing the claims. |
| 19-604 |
Francway v. Wilkie |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding
that the Department
of Veterans Affairs enjoys a presumption that its medical
examiner is competent in every veterans-benefit
case; and (2) whether the Federal Circuit erred in
expanding the presumption of competency so that
the VA and reviewing courts presume, not only that
VA medical examiners are competent, but also that
they are specialists in the relevant area of medicine. |
| 19-123 |
Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania |
Whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim — namely that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views — as two circuits have held, or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable, as six circuits have held; (2) whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited; and (3) whether the government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency’s ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency’s religious beliefs. |
| 19-296 |
Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives |
(1) Whether deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, rather than the
rule of lenity, takes precedence in the interpretation
of statutory language defining an element of various
crimes when such language also has administrative
applications; (2) whether, if Chevron deference applies and
takes priority over the rule of lenity, such deference
can be waived in the course of litigation and on appeal; and (3) whether, if Chevron deference applies and cannot be waived, Chevron should be overruled. |
| 19-549 |
Hannah P. v. Maguire |
Whether an employment
decision that is based on conduct caused by a qualified
individual’s disability is insulated from scrutiny
under the federal disability-discrimination statutes on
the ground that the decision is not made on the basis
of disability. |
| 19-743 |
Hill v. Whole Woman’s Health Alliance |
(1) Whether a corporation that has been denied a
state license to open a new abortion clinic may assert the
14th Amendment rights of hypothetical future
patients as the basis for challenging the licensing requirement and the license denial; and (2) whether a federal court may order a state agency to
issue an abortion-clinic license as a remedy for an “as
applied” undue-burden challenge to state implementation of its licensing laws. |
| 19-277 |
HSBC Holdings PLC v. Picard |
(1) Whether applying Bankruptcy Code Section 550(a)(2) to permit recovery of the proceeds of a foreign transaction that occurred abroad between two foreign parties governed by foreign law constitutes a “domestic” application of Section 550(a)(2) for the purpose of an extraterritoriality analysis; and (2) Whether a bankruptcy court’s and district court’s abstentions from applying U. S. law on grounds of international comity should be reviewed for abuse of discretion, as seven circuits that reached the issue have held, or de novo, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit held. |
| 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. |
| 19-534 |
Kadria v. Barr |
Whether the government may commence removal proceedings by issuing a notice to appear that omits the proceedings' time and place. |
| 19-475 |
Karingithi v. Barr |
(1) Whether the government may commence removal
proceedings by serving a noncitizen with a “notice to
appear” that fails to specify the hearing’s time and
place; and (2) whether deference under Auer v. Robbins allows an executive agency
to interpret a regulation in a way that conflicts with
a congressional statute. |
| 19-718 |
King v. Brownback |
Whether a law enforcement officer’s membership in a
joint state-federal police task force managed, in part,
by a federal agency precludes him or her from acting
“under color of state law” for purposes of Section 1983. |
| 19-741 |
Klieman v. Palestinian Authority |
(1) Whether the Palestinian Authority-Palestinian Liberation
Organization has the right to
raise a due process defense under the Fifth
Amendment—a defense that the Supreme Court has ruled
unavailable to U.S. state sovereigns and that many courts
have ruled unavailable to foreign sovereigns—while
simultaneously asserting its status as a foreign
sovereign in a case against the United States at the
International Court of Justice, which handicaps
Congress’ constitutional powers; (2) whether a court can override Congress’
intent to subject the PA-PLO under the Anti-Terrorism Act to civil litigation in U.S. courts, despite
Congress’ constitutional authority to amend the
jurisdiction of federal courts and protect Americans
from acts of PA-PLO terrorism; and (3) whether the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, which allows
criminal prosecution of a terrorist who murders a U.S.
citizen, as well any person or entity that supported the
crime, would nonetheless bar a lawsuit by the victim’s
family to impose civil liability on the same actors
under the same U.S. Code section. |
| 19-307 |
McKeever v. Barr |
Whether district courts have inherent authority to release grand jury materials in extraordinary circumstances, such as when the case is historically
significant and the public interest strongly favors disclosure. |
| 19-284 |
Mercado-Ramirez v. Barr |
(1) Whether the phrase “crime involving moral turpitude” in the Immigration and Nationality Act is void for vagueness; and (2) whether an agency may apply its new rule retroactively to a noncitizen who pleaded guilty relying
on the agency’s previous rule. |
| 19-494 |
Morgan v. Washington |
Whether a government official who would like to seize someone’s personal property, and has both probable cause and the time to obtain a warrant, must bring his probable cause to a magistrate to obtain a warrant or may, under the plain-view exception, send a fellow officer to take the property. |
| 19-683 |
Moss v. Atkinson |
Whether a federal prisoner may proceed through 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e)’s saving clause to
seek collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when that prisoner has demonstrated a favorable, retroactive change
in the statutory rule that originally established the legality of his or her conviction or sentence. |
| 19-185 |
Mutond v. Lewis |
(1) Whether a plaintiff can preclude conduct-based
immunity for foreign government officials merely by suing them in their personal capacities; and (2) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act abrogates all common-law
conduct-based immunity for foreign officials, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit held below, or leaves immunity intact, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 9th Circuits have held. |
| 19-638 |
N. B. D. v. Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services |
Whether federal law requires state courts of competent jurisdiction to make predicate findings for special immigrant juvenile status determinations upon request. |
| 19-416 |
Nestlé USA v. Doe I |
Whether an aiding and abetting claim against a domestic corporation brought under the Alien Tort Statute may overcome the extraterritoriality bar where the claim is based on allegations of general corporate activity in the United States and where the plaintiffs cannot trace the alleged harms, which occurred abroad at the hands of unidentified foreign actors, to that activity; and (2) whether the judiciary has the authority under the Alien Tort Statute to impose liability on domestic corporations. |
| 18-349 |
Patterson v. Walgreen Co. |
(1) Whether an accommodation that merely lessens or has the potential to eliminate the conflict between work and religious practice is “reasonable” per se, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 4th and 11th Circuits hold; does it instead create a jury question, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 10th Circuits hold; or must an accommodation fully eliminate the conflict in order to be “reasonable” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 7th and 9th Circuits hold; (2) whether speculation about possible future burdens is sufficient to meet the employer’s burden in establishing “undue hardship,” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th and 11th Circuits hold, or must the employer demonstrate an actual burden, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 8th, 9th and 10th Circuits hold; and (3) whether the portion of TWA v. Hardison opining that “undue hardship” simply means something more than a “de minimis cost” should be disavowed or overruled. CVSG: 12/9/2019. |
| 19-697 |
Pavatt v. Sharp |
(1) Whether the Supreme Court should summarily reverse
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s clearly erroneous procedural
ruling; and (2) whether, if the Supreme Court grants plenary review, a
state’s application of an aggravating factor to justify
the death penalty violates the Eighth and 14th
Amendments—and conflicts with both the Supreme Court’s
precedents prohibiting the arbitrary imposition of
capital sentences and the decisions of other appellate
courts—when it makes punishable by death any
homicide where the victim does not die immediately. |
| 18-1401 |
Peterson v. Linear Controls Inc. |
Whether the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” covered by Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are limited only to hiring, firing, promotions, compensation and leave. |
| 19-520 |
Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany |
Whether the Federal Republic of Germany,
a foreign state, is subject to jurisdiction under the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act for claims to
property that was taken in violation of international
law because Germany’s instrumentality (and possessor of the property at issue), Stiftung Preussischer Kulturbesitz, is engaged in commercial activity in
the United States. |
| 19-815 |
Phoenix v. Regions Bank |
Whether the regulations issued by the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System, and then by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, permissibly construe the “applicants”
protected from discrimination by Equal Credit Opportunity Act to encompass
guarantors. |
| 19-779 |
Pierre-Paul v. Barr |
(1) Whether a notice to appear must specify the time
and place of a noncitizen’s removal proceedings; (2) whether, assuming that a notice to appear must include the time and place of a noncitizen’s removal proceedings, serving the noncitizen with a subsequent notice
of hearing containing the time-and-place information can
cure a defective notice to appear that lacked that information; and (3) whether filing a valid notice to appear or other
charging document in the immigration court is a prerequisite to that court’s obtaining subject-matter jurisdiction
over a noncitizen’s removal proceedings. |
| 19-574 |
Poole v. New York State Citizens’ Coalition for Children |
Whether the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of
1980’s criteria for partial federal
reimbursement unambiguously confer on foster
parents a private right of action to compel states
to cover the costs of all the eligible expenses for
eligible children identified in the CWA. |
| 18-1516 |
Price v. City of Chicago, Illinois |
Whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Hill v. Colorado in light of the Supreme Court’s intervening decisions in Reed v. Town of Gilbert and McCullen v. Coakley. |
| 19-411 |
Reed v. Texas |
(1) How a court should consider under the Brady materiality standard the impact of a key trial witness's assertion of the privilege against self-incrimination and refusal to testify when confronted with the suppressed exculpatory evidence; (2) when expert testimony relied on by the state in a criminal trial is later shown to be scientifically invalid, what is the appropriate standard to assess whether the state’s use of the testimony violated due process; and (3) whether the conviction or execution of a person who is actually innocent of a crime violates the U. S. Constitution. |
| 19-66 |
Ricks v. Idaho Contractors Board |
Whether the Supreme Court should revisit its holding in
Employment Division v. Smith
that the free exercise clause generally requires no religious exemptions from laws that are neutral and generally applicable. |
| 19-512 |
Robinson v. Department of Education |
Whether the Fair Credit Reporting Act
authorizes consumers to file civil suits
against federal governmental agencies
under 15 U.S.C. § 1681n and § 1681o. |
| 18-921 |
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano |
Whether the First Amendment empowers courts to override the chosen legal structure of a religious organization and declare all of its constituent parts a single legal entity subject to joint and several liability. CVSG: 12/6/2019. |
| 19-609 |
Shepherd v. Studdard |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit
erred in finding that a case involving a shooting-through-doorway tactical scenario squarely
governed a situation in which deputies faced a
knife-wielding suspect on open ground; (2) whether Deputy Kyle Lane’s lack of
knowledge create a triable issue of fact as to
whether Edmond Studdard was walking; and (3) whether Deputies Erin Shepherd and Terry Reed's mistaken
perception of the distance between themselves and
a knife-wielding suspect during a 30-second
encounter strip them of qualified immunity. |
| 19-764 |
Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization |
(1) Whether the Palestine Liberation
Organization and Palestinian Authority consented to personal
jurisdiction when they chose to maintain facilities within
the United States after the date specified in the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1992; and (2) whether the Fifth Amendment’s due process
clause bars federal courts from exercising jurisdiction
authorized by Congress over a defendant whose criminal
conduct harms a U.S. citizen outside of the United States. |
| 19-755 |
Steiner v. Utah State Tax Commission |
Whether Utah’s tax code—which extends a credit for income taxes
paid to other states but does not extend a similar
credit for income taxes paid to foreign countries or
make other adjustments for foreign income, resulting in a double taxation of income that state
residents earn from foreign commerce—discriminates against foreign commerce in violation
of the dormant commerce clause. |
| 19-433 |
Sutherland v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, when a defendant makes false statements to a
United States Attorney’s Office in an effort to
persuade that office to decline prosecution,
the objective institutional relationship of
that office with the grand jury satisfies the
“nexus” required for obstruction or attempted
obstruction of a grand jury proceeding under 18
U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), regardless of whether the
defendant subjectively knew, understood or
believed the false documents would be given to
the grand jury; and (2) whether, when a prosecutor commits misconduct in
summation by misstating evidence relevant to
an essential element of the offense, but the
defendant fails to object, the fact that the
district court provided the jury a standard
instruction that “arguments are not evidence”
necessarily precludes reversal on appeal for
plain error based on the prosecutor’s
misconduct. |
| 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. |
| 19-735 |
Tong v. Tweed-New Haven Airport Authority |
(1) Whether a political subdivision of a state has
standing to sue its creator state under the
supremacy clause of the United States
Constitution; and (2) whether the Federal Aviation Act preempts a state
law limiting the length of an airport runway,
thereby depriving a state from determining
the size and nature of a local airport. |
| 19-547 |
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club |
Whether Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, by incorporating
the deliberative process privilege, protects against compelled disclosure of a federal agency’s draft documents
that were prepared as part of a formal interagency consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 and that concerned
a proposed agency action that was later modified in the
consultation process. |
| 19-532 |
U.S. v. California |
Whether provisions of California law that, with certain limited exceptions, prohibit state law-enforcement
officials from providing federal immigration authorities
with release dates and other information about individuals subject to federal immigration enforcement, and
restrict the transfer of aliens in state custody to federal
immigration custody, are preempted by federal law or
barred by intergovernmental immunity. |
| 19-795 |
Voorhees v. U.S. |
Whether the principle that criminal
statutes must contain a mens rea element, with the
exception of strict liability offenses, applies to criminal prosecutions under the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, when the
underlying statute at issue, 10 U.S.C. § 933, contains no mens rea element and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces held below that only a general intent is required using an objective, versus subjective, standard, i.e., negligence, and thus that no mens rea element need be instructed to the jury, even when the “conduct” alleged to be criminal is facially noncriminal. |
| 19-723 |
White v. U.S. |
Whether the Fifth Amendment’s due process
clause forbids the civil-commitment trial of an
incompetent person whose prior conduct is disputed. |
| 19-587 |
White v. U.S. |
Whether, notwithstanding the plain language of
Section 3161(h)(7) of the Speedy Trial Act and the Supreme Court’s decision in Zedner v. United States, a district court may exclude time pursuant to a stipulation between the parties without making its own “on-the-record findings” that the ends of justice served by a continuance outweigh the interests of
the defendant and the public in a speedy trial. |
Submit Event
