| 21-82 |
Alpine Securities Corp. v. Securities and Exchange Commission |
Whether the Security and Exchange Commission’s assertion of independent authority to interpret and enforce the Bank Secrecy Act contravenes Congress’s decision to entrust enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act’s comprehensive anti-money-laundering regime to the Treasury Department, a politically accountable executive agency. |
| 20-891 |
American Axle & Manufacturing Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC |
(1) What standard determines whether a patent claim is “directed to” a
patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Supreme Court’s
two-step framework for determining whether an
invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101; and (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. |
| 20-1499 |
American Civil Liberties Union v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court, like other Article III courts,
has jurisdiction to consider a motion asserting that
the First Amendment provides a qualified public right
of access to the court’s significant opinions, and
whether the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review has jurisdiction to consider an
appeal from the denial of such a motion; and (2) whether the First Amendment provides a
qualified right of public access to the FISC’s
significant opinions. |
| 21-118 |
Apple Inc. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may review, by appeal or mandamus, a decision of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office denying a petition for inter partes review of a patent, where review is sought on the grounds that the denial rested on an agency rule that exceeds the PTO’s authority under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, is arbitrary or capricious, or was adopted without required notice-and-comment rulemaking. |
| 21-27 |
Arrow Highway Steel v. Dubin |
(1) Whether the dormant commerce clause may be used to invalidate the application of a state's neutral, non-discriminatory tolling statute to defeat the enforcement of a former resident's stipulated judgment where there is no showing of any burden on or discrimination against interstate commerce; and (2) whether the dormant commerce clause applies to a state statute with no intended or demonstrated effect on interstate commerce. |
| 20-1507 |
Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs Inc. v. Grewal |
(1) Whether a blanket, retrospective and
confiscatory law prohibiting ordinary law-abiding
citizens from possessing magazines in common use
violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens without
compensation of property that was lawfully acquired
and long possessed without incident violates the
takings clause. |
| 21-86 |
Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commission |
(1) Whether Congress impliedly stripped federal district courts of jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to the Federal Trade Commission’s structure, procedures, and existence by granting the courts of appeals jurisdiction to “affirm, enforce, modify, or set aside” the Commission’s cease-and desist orders; and (2) whether, on the merits, the structure of the Federal Trade Commission, including the dual-layer for-cause removal protections afforded its administrative law judges, is consistent with the Constitution. |
| 20-1643 |
Baisley v. Int'l Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers |
Whether opt-out procedures for collecting union fees for ideological and political activities violate the First Amendment or the Railway Labor Act. |
| 20-1761 |
Berrier v. Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission |
Whether compacting States, simply by creating an interstate compact, relinquish all sovereign authority over that compact entity unless expressly reserved. |
| 20-685 |
Biden v. Sierra Club |
(1) Whether the Sierra Club has a cognizable cause of
action to obtain review of the secretary of defense’s compliance
with 10 U.S.C. § 2808 in reprioritizing appropriated but unobligated funds for the military construction projects involving border
barriers being authorized; and (2) whether the secretary exceeded his statutory authority under Section 2808 in reprioritizing appropriated funds for the military construction projects following the president’s declaration of a national emergency requiring the use of the armed forces at the southern border. |
| 21-26 |
Billetts v. Mentor Worldwide, LLC |
Whether preemption under the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act supports Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of state common law claims alleging failure to warn by virtue of inaccurate post-approval, post-sale public reporting of adverse events, and claims alleging defective manufacture of medical devices. |
| 20-1334 |
Boardman v. Inslee |
Whether a law that skews the debate over the
value of public-sector unions and undermines public-sector employees’ opt-out rights by giving incumbent
unions exclusive access to information necessary to
communicate with public-sector employees is
consistent with the First Amendment. |
| 20-1472 |
Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue |
Whether the 30-day time limit to file a petition for
review in the Tax Court of a notice of determination
from the commissioner of internal revenue in 26
U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) is a
jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule
subject to equitable tolling. |
| 20-1375 |
Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. |
Whether, when a court permits an unemancipated minor to
have an abortion, the state may require that her parents be notified before the abortion occurs except
where such notice would contravene her best interests. |
| 21-10 |
Braun v. Burke |
(1) Whether a court should apply the intent-to-harm standard of liability to all police high-speed driving, as have the 8th and 9th Circuits, or instead employ an analysis which examines the facts of individual cases to decide whether there was an opportunity to deliberate and apply the standard of deliberate indifference or another standard other than intent-to-harm, as have the 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuits; and (2) whether a court reviewing high-speed driving by a police officer should use an objective test to determine whether an emergency existed, as have the 3rd, 4th, and 7th Circuits, or rely merely on the asserted claim of an officer that he subjectively believed there to be an emergency, as has the 8th Circuit. |
| 20-1732 |
Bryant v. U.S. |
Whether Section 1B1.13 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines is an “applicable” policy statement that binds a district court in considering a defendant-filed motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018. |
| 20-8312 |
Burke v. Washington |
Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment prohibits a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner from testifying about statements made during a forensic examination by an adult sexual assault complainant who is unavailable to testify at trial and has not previously been subjected to cross-examination. |
| 20-1453 |
Cal Cartage Transportation Express, LLC v. California |
Whether the Federal Aviation Administration
Authorization Act, which expressly preempts state
laws “related to a price, route, or service of any motor
carrier,” preempts state
worker-classification laws that have an effect on a
motor carrier’s prices and services by discouraging the
use of independent contractors. |
| 21-109 |
California State Lands Commission v. Davis |
(1) Whether the States’ consent to suit in the bankruptcy courts, found to exist in Central Virginia Community College v. Katz, reaches a suit brought against a State, after the effective date of a debtor’s plan of liquidation, seeking money damages from a State treasury on a claim that does not arise under federal bankruptcy law, insolvency law, or a claim that was historically brought “as a core aspect of the administration of bankruptcy estates”; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should reconsider Central Virginia Community College v. Katz. |
| 20-1790 |
Campbell v. U.S. |
(1) Whether a trial court violates a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause by prohibiting cross-examination of accomplice witnesses about the sentencing benefits they hope to receive in exchange for their cooperation with the government; and (2) whether appellate courts should review violations of the Confrontation Clause de novo or for abuse of discretion. |
| 20-1790 |
Campbell v. U.S. |
(1) Whether a trial court violates a defendant’s rights under the Confrontation Clause by prohibiting cross-examination of accomplice witnesses about the sentencing benefits they hope to receive in exchange for their cooperation with the government; and (2) whether appellate courts should review violations of the Confrontation Clause de novo or for abuse of discretion. |
| 20-7065 |
Canales v. Lumpkin |
(1) Whether, for penalty-phase ineffective assistance of counsel violations, Harrington v. Richter “established a substantial likelihood standard for evaluating prejudice” that exceeds the standard in Wiggins v. Smith of a “reasonable probability that at least one juror would have struck a different balance” on whether to punish by death; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s failure to “reweigh the evidence in aggravation against the totality of available mitigating evidence” conflicts with Wiggins and Andrus v. Texas. |
| 20-1566 |
Cassirer v. Thyssen-Bornemisza Collection Foundation |
Whether a federal court hearing state law claims brought under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act must apply the forum state’s choice-of-law rules to determine what substantive law governs the claims at issue, or whether it may apply federal common law. |
| 20-1279 |
Castañon v. U.S. |
Whether the three-judge district court erred by
holding that residents of the District of Columbia are
not entitled to voting representation in the House of
Representatives because they do not live in a “State,”
even though (1) Americans living overseas and
residents of “federal enclaves” have voting
representation in Congress despite not being State
residents, (2) Congress has concluded that it may
extend voting rights to District residents under the
“District Clause” of the Constitution, Article I, Section
17, Clause 8, and (3) the Supreme Court has held that the right
to vote is the most fundamental of all rights because
it is preservative of all other rights. |
| 21-51 |
Central Payment Co., LLC v. Custom Hair Designs by Sandy, LLC |
Whether a class may be certified under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure when the class claims turn on materially different contractual rights and obligations between the defendant and each class member. |
| 20-257 |
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. v. Scott |
Whether a district court may consider factors other
than the presence of a single material question of law or
fact common to a group of employees when assessing
whether the employees are “similarly situated” for purposes of the collective-action provision of the Fair Labor
Standards Act. |
| 21A8 |
Chrysafis v. Marks |
(1) Whether New York’s eviction moratorium law, which continues to block property owners from pursuing eviction proceedings or otherwise challenging their tenants’ bald claims of COVID-19 “hardship,” and compels them to serve as the government’s mouthpieces in transmitting government-drafted messages, declaration forms, and lists of recommended legal service providers to their tenants, deprives these property owners of their due process rights and violates their First Amendment rights against compelled speech; and (2) whether the courts below erred in concluding that Jacobson v. Massachusetts requires the application of deferential, rational basis review in evaluating constitutional challenges to government action taken in response to a public health emergency, particularly where, as here, New York has declared its “state of emergency” to be over. |
| 20-1006 |
City of Hayward, California v. Stoddard-Nunez |
(1) Whether an accelerating fleeing driver’s sudden
turn deprives a threatened shooting officer of
qualified immunity; and (2) whether an unintended victim-passenger of a
fleeing vehicle is “seized” for purposes of the Fourth
Amendment. |
| 20-1788 |
City of New York v. Frost |
Whether, where a Section 1983 plaintiff alleges that his pretrial detention was influenced by fabricated evidence, and the existence of probable cause independent of the challenged evidence defeats his Fourth Amendment claim, he may still pursue a due process-based claim based on alleged use of the same challenged evidence in securing the same pretrial detention. |
| 20-1668 |
City of Tahlequah, Oklahoma v. Bond |
(1) Whether use of force that is reasonable at the moment it is employed can nonetheless violate the Fourth Amendment if the officers recklessly or deliberately created the need to use force; and (2) whether it was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes that advancing toward an intoxicated individual wielding a deadly weapon inside a garage was a “reckless” act that would render unconstitutional any subsequent use of lethal force in response to a threat to officer safety. |
| 20-1474 |
Colone v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County |
(1) Whether federal statutes must contain
express privilege language before courts
may decide that Congress intended the
statute to create an evidentiary privilege
that abrogates the legislated subpoena
and discovery rules, and impedes judicial
truth-seeking, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 9th, 10th and
11th Circuits have ruled, or whether
courts may read ambiguous silence in
statutory text to impliedly create such a
privilege, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
3rd and 5th Circuits, and the lower
courts in this case, have ruled; and (2) whether the Stored Communications
Act yields to judicial process, as the 9th Circuit
has presumed, or whether the act impliedly creates a novel, unqualified evidentiary privilege for the Internet that
bars judicial subpoenas requested by
non-governmental litigants, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, the Ohio State Supreme
Court, the District of Columbia Court of
Appeals and the lower courts in this
case have ruled. |
| 20-1141 |
Doe Company v. U.S. |
(1) Whether an appealing party’s substantial interest in a disclosure order directing a disinterested
third party to produce documents provides appellate
jurisdiction under Perlman v. United States, when that interest will be lost absent immediate appellate review; and (2) whether a federal court lacks specific personal
jurisdiction to enforce a subpoena that is directed to a
foreign recipient and demands the production of documents that are unrelated to the recipient’s contacts
with the United States. |
| 20-1000 |
Dominguez v. U.S. |
Whether attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act qualifies as a “crime of violence,” meaning that it “has as an element the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against the person or
property of another." |
| 20-1026 |
Eagle Trust Fund v. U.S. Postal Service |
(1) Whether the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 impliedly bars non-Administrative Procedure Act
review, including claims of arbitrary-and-capricious
conduct or failure to follow the U.S. Postal Service’s own rules; and (2) whether the PRA violates Article III as
applied to bar judicial review of USPS adjudications. |
| 20-1462 |
Eni USA Gas Marketing LLC v. Gulf LNG Energy, LLC |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits a court
to refuse to enforce an arbitration agreement delegating
all questions, including questions of arbitrability, to an
arbitrator when a party contends that the claim sought
to be arbitrated represents a “collateral attack” on a prior
arbitration award. |
| 20-1426 |
Epic Systems Corp. v. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. |
Whether a state statute that expressly caps punitive
damages at two times compensatory damages
satisfies the notice requirement of the due process
clause such that a punitive damages award that
complies with the statute is constitutionally
sound under the due process clause. |
| 20-1817 |
Ezaki Glico Co. v. Lotte Int'l America Corp. |
(1) Whether trade dress is “functional” if it is “essential to the use or purpose of the article” or “affects the cost or quality of the article,” as the Supreme Court and nine circuit courts have held, or if it is merely “useful” and “nothing more,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held below; and (2) whether the presence of alternative designs serving the same use or purpose creates a question of fact with respect to functionality, where the product’s design does not affect cost or quality and is not claimed in a utility patent. |
| 21-12 |
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate |
(1) Whether appellees have standing to challenge the statutory loan-repayment limit of 52 U.S.C. 30116(j); and (2) whether the loan-repayment limit violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. |
| 20-1648 |
Fischer v. Forrest |
(1) Whether the name of the author of a copyrighted work is copyright management information or whether it must also be apparent from context that the name is copyright-related; and (2) whether the name of the copyright owner of a copyrighted work is copyright management information or whether it must also be apparent from context that the name is copyright-related. |
| 21-84 |
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education v. Victim Rights Law Center |
Whether a movant who seeks to intervene as of right, under FRCP 24(a)(2), on the same side as a governmental litigant must overcome a presumption of adequate representation. |
| 21-57 |
Frasier v. Evans |
(1) Whether training or law enforcement policies can be relevant to whether a police officer is entitled to qualified immunity; and (2) whether it has been “clearly established” since at least 2014 that the First Amendment protects the right of individuals to record police officers carrying out their duties in public. |
| 20-609 |
Gannett Co. v. Quatrone |
Whether a plaintiff adequately pleads breach of the
duties of prudence and diversification solely by alleging that fiduciaries permitted participants in a defined contribution plan to choose, from an adequately
diversified menu of investment options, to invest in
an undiversified single-stock fund. |
| 20-322 |
Garland v. Gonzalez |
Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention,
to a bond hearing at which the government must prove
to an immigration judge that the alien is a flight risk or
a danger to the community. |
| 20-1034 |
Golan v. Saada |
Whether, upon finding that return to the country of
habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district
court is required to consider ameliorative measures that
would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding
the grave risk finding. |
| 21-17 |
Hargreaves v. Nuverra Environmental Solutions |
Whether the doctrine of equitable mootness is inconsistent with the federal courts’ “virtually unflagging” obligation to hear and decide cases within their jurisdiction. |
| 20-1611 |
Healthcare Distribution Alliance v. James |
Whether the New York Opioid Stewardship Act’s surcharge is a “tax” within the meaning of the Tax Injunction Act, despite having features that other circuits repeatedly have held indicative of a punitive fee. |
| 20-1479 |
Houston v. U.S. |
Whether a sentencing court must consider
applicable sentencing factors codified in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) when deciding whether to impose a reduced
sentence under Section 404(b) of the First Step Act. |
| 20-1570 |
HRB Tax Group v. Snarr |
Whether California’s
public-policy rule declining to enforce agreements for
individualized arbitration whenever a plaintiff seeks
a public injunction is preempted by the Federal
Arbitration Act. |
| 20-905 |
Independent School District No. 283 v. E.M.D.H. ex rel. L.H. and S.D. |
Whether the continuing-violation doctrine applies
to the two-year statutory time limit to file an administrative complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. |
| 20-997 |
James v. Bartelt |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over an appeal of the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity on a motion for summary judgment is in conflict with Johnson v. Jones and its own precedent; (2) whether the 3rd Circuit’s ruling that inexplicably deviates from the 3rd Circuit’s precedent in Bennett v. Murphy is an error of law; (3) whether an officer who testifies that he was not in fear of his life or the lives of others nor did he feel threatened by Gibbons before fatally shooting a suspect is entitled to qualified immunity; and (4) whether the 3rd Circuit erred as a matter of law when it interpreted the Supreme Court’s holdings in White v. Pauly and Kisela v. Hughes as creating a new standard of review to the established law when it granted Bartelt absolute immunity for his use of deadly force against a suicidal suspect. |
| 21-68 |
Janis v. U.S. |
(1) Whether Standard Condition 12 of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, codified in U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(c)(12), unconstitutionally delegates authority to the probation officer; and (2) whether Standard Condition 12 is unconstitutionally vague. |
| 19-896 |
Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez |
Whether an alien who is detained under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231 is entitled by statute, after six months of detention,
to a bond hearing at which the government must prove
to an immigration judge by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the
community. |
| 20-1614 |
Leontaritis v. U.S. |
(1) Whether, if a jury is instructed to “determine” a fact by indicating a “unanimous finding beyond a reasonable doubt” and does so, the resulting verdict indicates a finding beyond a reasonable doubt, as opposed to a mere failure to find; and (2) whether, if a jury verdict finds a fact beyond a reasonable doubt, a district court’s sentencing decision must accept the jury’s determination or instead may base the sentence on its own independent finding that contradicts the jury’s. |
| 21-2 |
Lewis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit improperly extended Chevron deference to Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation’s construction of ambiguous statutory provisions in informal, non-binding adjudications undertaken not in the agency’s congressionally assigned role as insurer (or in any other regulatory capacity) but instead as a plan trustee and fiduciary. |
| 20-1587 |
Louisiana v. Hill |
(1) Whether a state may require convicted sex offenders to obtain and carry a state identification bearing the words “sex offender” without facially violating the First Amendment’s prohibition on compelled speech; and (2) whether a convicted sex offender has a First Amendment right not to be prosecuted for fraudulently altering a state identification card after scratching off a statutorily required sex offender designation. |
| 20-1641 |
Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Davita |
(1) Whether a group health plan that provides uniform reimbursement of all dialysis treatments observe the prohibition provided by the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that group health plans may not “take into account” the fact that a plan participant with end stage renal disease is eligible for Medicare benefits; (2) whether a plan that provides the same dialysis benefits to all plan participants, and reimburses dialysis providers uniformly regardless of whether the patient has end stage renal disease, observe the prohibition under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act that a group health plan also may not “differentiate” between individuals with end stage renal disease and others “in the benefits it provides”; and (3) whether the Medicare Secondary Payer Act is a coordination-of-benefits measure designed to protect Medicare, not an antidiscrimination law designed to protect certain providers from alleged disparate impact of uniform treatment. |
| 20-1046 |
Marin Housing Authority v. Reilly |
Whether a public housing authority, in calculating a family’s annual income, is required by 24 C.F.R. 5.609(c)(16) to exclude Medicaid-funded payments made to a family by a State agency to allow the Section 8 tenant to provide personal caregiving services in order to keep a developmentally disabled family member at home. |
| 22O152 |
Montana and Wyoming v. Washington |
Whether Washington state’s denial of port access to ship Montana and Wyoming coal to foreign markets violates the commerce clause. CVSG: 5/25/2021. |
| 20-1779 |
Morales-Vázquez v. QBE Seguros |
Whether the traditional doctrine of uberrimae fidei (“utmost good faith”) continues to apply in its strict form (as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in the decision below and also by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 9th, and 11th Circuits), or is the doctrine limited to cases in which the insurer relied on a mistake or omission when issuing the policy (as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 8th Circuits), or is the traditional doctrine no longer part of federal maritime law (as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit), or should the doctrine be modified to limit an insurer’s ability to avoid the policy (which would restore uniformity with the law in England). |
| 21-111 |
NC Financial Solutions of Utah, LLC v. Virginia |
Whether a state attorney general who is not a signatory to an arbitration agreement may bring claims that are covered by the agreement and seek individualized relief on those claims on behalf of persons who are signatories to the agreement and thus would be required to arbitrate if they brought those claims themselves. |
| 20-1673 |
Nettles v. Midland Funding, LLC |
(1) Whether, under Spokeo, it is sufficient for standing simply to allege a violation of the procedural rights created by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as six circuits have held, or must a plaintiff also always allege an additional injury beyond such a violation, as five circuits (including the 7th in this case) have held; and (2) whether some additional injury is required for standing under the Act, whether it is sufficient to allege mental distress or lost time dealing with a violation of the Act, as the 4th, 11th, and D.C. Circuits have held, or whether something more than mental distress or lost time is required, as the 7th (in this case) and 9th Circuits have held. |
| 20-1531 |
North American Coal Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), which authorizes the
Environmental Protection Agency to impose standards “for any existing source”
based on limits “achievable through the application of
the best system of emission reduction” that has been
“adequately demonstrated,” grants the EPA authority
not only to impose standards based on technology and
methods that can be applied at and achieved by that
existing source, but also allows the agency to develop
industry-wide systems like cap-and-trade regimes. |
| 20-1784 |
Ohio v. Deuble |
(1) Whether probable cause existed under the Fourth Amendment to detain a person suspected of soliciting sexual activity from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor through a social media application where the person’s identity is corroborated through the person’s actions. Here the suspect agreed to meet the law enforcement officer posing as a minor for sexual activity, and was the only person observed at the agreed meeting location using his cell phone as the law enforcement officer posing as the minor sent communications to the suspect through the social media application; and (2) whether a phone is searched for purposes of the Fourth Amendment where the phone’s content was not affirmatively accessed by law enforcement officers. |
| 20-1784 |
Ohio v. Deuble |
(1) Whether probable cause existed under the Fourth Amendment to detain a person suspected of soliciting sexual activity from a law enforcement officer posing as a minor through a social media application where the person’s identity is corroborated through the person’s actions. Here the suspect agreed to meet the law enforcement officer posing as a minor for sexual activity, and was the only person observed at the agreed meeting location using his cell phone as the law enforcement officer posing as the minor sent communications to the suspect through the social media application; and (2) whether a phone is searched for purposes of the Fourth Amendment where the phone’s content was not affirmatively accessed by law enforcement officers. |
| 20-1057 |
Oracle America Inc. v. U.S. |
(1) Whether a bid protest that establishes a violation of
federal law may be denied for “harmless error” based on a
rationale not present in the administrative record; and (2) whether, in resolving a bid protest that establishes a
violation of the criminal conflict-of-interest statute, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can enforce the contract based on
deference to an agency’s assessment that the criminal violation
did not taint the procurement. |
| 20-1735 |
Ortiz-Diaz v. U.S. |
Whether Congress has power under the Commerce Clause to criminalize cockfighting on the island of Puerto Rico. |
| 21-80 |
Outdoor Amusement Business Association v. Department of Homeland Security |
Whether Congress, consistent with the nondelegation doctrine and clear-statement rule, impliedly authorized the Secretary of Labor individually to promulgate legislative rules for the admission of H-2B workers and adjudicate H-2B labor certifications. |
| 20-1698 |
Palade v. Board of Trustees University of Arkansas System |
Whether the lower courts erred in holding that Petitioners lacked standing to seek declaratory relief concerning the retroactive application of newly revised policies concerning the grounds for dismissal and academic discipline to faculty who are on the tenure-track and faculty who have already earned tenure under prior Board of Trustees policies. |
| 20-1483 |
Pilevsky v. Sutton 58 Associates LLC |
Whether the federal Bankruptcy Code preempts
state-law tort claims that are premised on an alleged
misuse of bankruptcy proceedings or that seek to
impose liability based on the very fact of bankruptcy. |
| 20-1709 |
Pon v. U.S. |
Whether an appellate court reviewing a cold criminal trial record may determine that an error at trial was harmless by applying an “overwhelming evidence of guilt” test that considers only the potential effect of the error on the government’s case and not on the defense. |
| 20-1598 |
Project Veritas Action Fund v. Rollins |
(1) Whether a recording law, which makes it a felony for individuals to secretly record under any circumstances, is not facially overbroad under the First Amendment; and (2) whether a party challenging a speech suppressive law has the burden to precisely articulate every type of contemplated speech activity to satisfy ripeness for as-applied challenges. |
| 20-1676 |
Public Watchdogs v. Southern California Edison Company |
Whether the Hobbs Act deprives a federal district court of subject matter jurisdiction over state law and Price-Anderson Act claims asserted by a private actor against private party Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensees, on the ground such claims are “ancillary or incidental to” an NRC final order. |
| 20-1287 |
Recovery Innovations Inc. v. Rawson |
Whether through the provision of mental health
services, a private, nonprofit hospital and private
health care providers become state actors, subject to
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when they provide mental health services to a person who was deemed to be
“gravely disabled” and to “present[] a likelihood of serious harm to others” under the state’s involuntary
commitment law. |
| 20-1539 |
Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s
decisions in Graham v. Connor and Plumhoff v. Rickard in denying qualified immunity to Daniel Rivas-Villegas based upon the absence of a constitutional violation, by concluding that pushing a
suspect down with a foot and briefly placing a
knee against the back of a prone, armed suspect while handcuffing him, could constitute
excessive force; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit departed from the Supreme Court’s
decision in Kisela v. Hughes and numerous
other cases by denying qualified immunity
even though two judges concluded the use of
force was reasonable, and notwithstanding
the absence of clearly established law imposing liability under circumstances closely analogous to those confronting Rivas-Villegas. |
| 20-1501 |
Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Lacewell |
(1) Whether New York’s regulation
mandating that employer health insurance plans
cover abortions, which burdens a subset
of religious organizations by forcing them to cover
abortions, is “neutral” and “generally applicable” under
Employment Division v. Smith and
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of
Hialeah; (2) whether New York’s mandate interferes with the
autonomy of religious entities, in violation of the
religion clauses of the First Amendment; and (3) whether — if, under the rule announced in Smith, the free
exercise clause of the First Amendment allows states
to demand that religious entities opposing abortions
subsidize them — Smith should be overruled. |
| 20-1410 |
Ruan v. U.S. |
Whether a physician alleged to have
prescribed controlled substances outside the usual
course of professional practice may be convicted of unlawful
distribution under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good
faith, he “reasonably believed” or “subjectively
intended” that his prescriptions fall within that
course of professional practice. |
| 20-1419 |
Russell v. New Jersey |
(1) Whether the Second Amendment protects
the right to carry arms outside of the
home for self-defense; and (2) whether the government may deny law-abiding citizens their exercise of the right
to carry a handgun outside of their homes
by conditioning the exercise of the right
on showings of need. |
| 20-1434 |
Rutledge v. Little Rock Family Planning Services |
Whether the 14th Amendment bars states
from prohibiting abortions that are sought solely
because of a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. |
| 20-1389 |
Savage v. U.S. |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit properly held — in conflict with decades of federal practice endorsing flexible procedures to assemble a complete record on appeal — that an appellant seeking a complete appellate
record must overcome procedural impediments lacking any basis in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10’s text: namely, that when an appellant lacks any “means” to “prepare
a statement of” untranscribed “proceedings” under
Rule 10(c), the district court has no obligation to assist in reconstructing those proceedings unless the appellant first files a declaration “saying he does not remember what happened,” and that when an appellant wishes to review
and supplement the record with undocketed trial correspondence in the district court’s possession, he must
first show how the correspondence would “give rise to
‘any difference[s]’ about whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court.” |
| 21-3 |
Schmitt v. Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region |
(1) Whether Missouri’s restriction on abortions performed solely because the unborn child may have Down syndrome is categorically invalid under Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey and Roe v. Wade, or whether it is a valid, reasonable regulation of abortion that seeks to prevent the elimination of children with Down syndrome through eugenic abortion; (2) whether Missouri’s restrictions on abortions performed after eight, 14, 18, and 20 weeks of gestational age are categorically invalid, or whether they are valid, reasonable regulations of abortion that advance important state interests; and (3) whether the “penumbral” right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade, and partially reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, should be overruled. |
| 21-48 |
Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission v. John Doe |
(1) Whether professional judgment rather than deliberate indifference is the proper constitutional standard for a claim of inadequate medical care brought against a secure juvenile detention center by a minor immigrant detainee in federal custody; and (2) whether a minor’s claim for injunctive relief seeking constitutionally adequate medical treatment from a secure juvenile detention center may be redressed by the court without a parent, guardian, or legal custodian joined as a party to the case. |
| 20-1704 |
Simmons v. U.S. |
Whether a court can summarily dismiss a pro se habeas petition as untimely for failure to adequately allege a causal connection when petitioner explains how a government impediment “prevented” him from filing timely but does not allege with specificity how he discovered and attempted to remedy that impediment. |
| 20-1747 |
Sorenson v. Massachusetts |
Whether the hallway area immediately adjacent to an apartment, in a private multi-family dwelling that is not open to the public, is part of the curtilage of the home for Fourth Amendment purposes. |
| 20-1379 |
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Center for Investigative Reporting |
Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
overruled or abrogated the court’s holding in Lehman v. City of
Shaker Heights that transit authorities have the discretion to
categorically prohibit political advertisements. |
| 20-1391 |
Sportswear Inc. v. Savannah College of Art and Design Inc. |
(1) Whether the scope of a federally-registered service
mark extends to unrelated goods bearing that
service mark; and (2) whether the defendant’s copying of a mark, without
proof of consumer confusion as to the source of
the parties’ goods or services, establishes
trademark infringement merely because
consumers recognize the mark. |
| 20-1562 |
Strain v. Regalado |
Whether a pretrial detainee can prevail against a
jail official who disregarded an obvious risk of serious
harm or whether the pretrial detainee must prove
that the official subjectively knew of and disregarded
a serious risk of harm. |
| 20-1199 |
Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College |
(1) Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Grutter v. Bollinger and hold that institutions of
higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions; and (2) whether Harvard College is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by penalizing Asian-American applicants, engaging in racial balancing, overemphasizing
race and rejecting workable race-neutral alternatives. |
| 20-1596 |
Taylor Lohmeyer Law Firm PLLC v. U.S. |
Whether documents that reflect the client’s identity are protected by the attorney-client privilege when the Government is aware of a citizen’s confidential communication with legal counsel or the motive for seeking advice but is unaware of the citizen’s identity. |
| 20-1349 |
Threatt v. Farrell |
Whether, and to what degree, a district court must consider counsel’s lodestar in awarding “reasonable attorney’s fees” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(h). |
| 20-603 |
Torres v. Texas Department of Public Safety |
Whether Congress has the
power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states
pursuant to its constitutional war powers. |
| 21-72 |
Turaani v. Wray |
Whether the standing analysis for Privacy Act improper disclosure claims requires determining if the plaintiff sufficiently alleged an “adverse effect” to satisfy traceability, as recognized by previous decisions of the Supreme Court, as opposed to requiring allegations of a “command” or “compulsion,” and if so, whether a plaintiff can demonstrate that adverse effect by alleging that the government’s improper disclosures produced a determinative or coercive effect on a third party who refuses to do business with the plaintiff. |
| 20-1246 |
Valentine v. Phillips |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(6) when it
failed to apply the proper, heightened and deferential
standard to the district court’s expert witness credibility
determination; and (2) whether the 6th Circuit usurped the district court’s expert witness
gatekeeping function when it held that the district court
should have credited the testimony of Johnny Phillips’s expert — and
granted Phillips’s petition — simply because that testimony
was not blatantly self-serving or dishonest. |
| 20-994 |
Volkswagen Group of America Inc. v. Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, Florida |
Whether the Clean Air Act preempts
state and local governments from regulating manufacturers’ post-sale, nationwide updates to vehicle emission systems. |
| 20-772 |
Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor v. Murphy |
Whether, under the doctrine of Ex parte Young, an interstate compact agency may
sue a state official to prevent that official from implementing a state law that would be preempted under a
congressionally approved interstate compact. |
| 20-1530 |
West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether, in 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d), an ancillary provision of the
Clean Air Act, Congress constitutionally authorized the
Environmental Protection Agency to issue significant
rules — including those capable of reshaping the nation’s
electricity grids and unilaterally decarbonizing virtually
any sector of the economy — without any limits on what the
agency can require so long as it considers cost, nonair
impacts and energy requirements. |
| 20-493 |
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas |
Whether the Ysleta del Sur
Pueblo and Alabama-Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas
Restoration Act provides the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
with sovereign authority to regulate non-prohibited gaming activities on its lands (including bingo), as set
forth in the plain language of Section 107(b), the act’s
legislative history and the Supreme Court’s holding in California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, or whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision affirming Ysleta del
Sur Pueblo v. Texas (Ysleta I) correctly subjects the pueblo to all Texas
gaming regulations. |
