October Term 2019

View this list sorted by case name.

October Sitting

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., No. 18-801 [Arg: 10.7.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 12.11.2019]

Holding: The PTO cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel under Section 145 of the Patent Act.
Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924 [Arg: 10.7.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.20.2020]

Holding: The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated against the states, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense.
Kahler v. Kansas, No. 18-6135 [Arg: 10.7.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: Due process does not require Kansas to adopt an insanity test that turns on a defendant’s ability to recognize that his crime was morally wrong.
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, No. 18-107 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether Title VII prohibits discrimination against transgender people based on (1) their status as transgender or (2) sex stereotyping under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins.
Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623 [Arg: 10.8.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1334 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
UTIER v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, No. 18-1521 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
U.S. v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1514 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
Aurelius Investment, LLC v. Puerto Rico, No. 18-1475 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
Official Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1496 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Constitution's appointments clause does not restrict the appointment or selection of members of Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board, who are appointed by the president without the Senate’s advice and consent.
Rotkiske v. Klemm, No. 18-328 [Arg: 10.16.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 12.10.2019]

Holding: Absent the application of an equitable doctrine, the statute of limitations in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692k(d), begins to run when the alleged FDCPA violation occurs, not when the violation is discovered.
Kansas v. Garcia, No. 17-834 [Arg: 10.16.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.3.2020]

Holding: The Kansas statutes under which respondents, three unauthorized aliens, were convicted—for fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number on state and federal tax-withholding forms submitted to their employers—are not expressly preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; and respondent’s argument that those law are preempted by implication is rejected.

November Sitting

Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725 [Arg: 11.4.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.23.2020]

Holding: In determining eligibility for cancellation of removal of a lawful permanent resident who commits a serious crime, an offense listed in 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(2) committed during the initial seven years of residence need not be one of the offenses of removal.
Kansas v. Glover, No. 18-556 [Arg: 11.4.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.6.2020]

Holding: When a police officer lacks information negating an inference that a person driving is the vehicle’s owner, an investigative traffic stop made after running the vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
Allen v. Cooper, No. 18-877 [Arg: 11.5.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: Congress lacked authority to abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits in the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990.
CITGO Asphalt Refining Co. v. Frescati Shipping Co., Ltd., No. 18-565 [Arg: 11.5.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.30.2020]

Holding: The plain language of the safe-berth clause in the parties’ subcharter agreement—requiring the petitioners to designate a safe berth for a vessel to load and discharge cargo—establishes a warranty of safety.
Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165 [Arg: 11.6.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 1.14.2020]

Holding: This case, about whether plaintiffs can state a claim against retirement-plan fiduciaries for breach of duty of prudence by alleging that the costs of undisclosed fraud grow over time, is vacated and remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit for a determination on whether to consider two arguments raised in the briefs at the Supreme Court but not in the lower courts.
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260 [Arg: 11.6.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.23.2020]

Holding: The Clean Water Act, which forbids “any addition” of any pollutant from “any point source” to “navigable waters” without the appropriate Environmental Protection Agency permit, requires a permit when there is a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the functional equivalent of a direct discharge.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
Wolf v. Vidal, No. 18-589 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy is judicially reviewable; and (2) whether DHS’s decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
Hernandez v. Mesa, No. 17-1678 [Arg: 11.12.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.25.2020]

Holding: The holding in Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents does not extend to claims based on a cross-border shooting.
Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media, No. 18-1171 [Arg: 11.13.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: A plaintiff who sues for racial discrimination in contracting under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 bears the burden of showing that race was a but-for cause of the plaintiff’s injury, and that burden remains constant over the life of the lawsuit.
Ritzen Group Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 18-938 [Arg: 11.13.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 1.14.2020]

Holding: A bankruptcy court’s order unreservedly denying relief from the automatic stay constitutes a final, immediately appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

December Sitting

Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., No. 18-1150 [Arg: 12.2.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: Under the government edicts doctrine, the annotations beneath the statutory provisions in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are ineligible for copyright protection.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, No. 18-280 [Arg: 12.2.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule on transporting firearms is moot, and any claim for damages with respect to that rule may be addressed in the first instance by the court of appeals and the district court on remand.
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, No. 17-1498 [Arg: 12.3.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.20.2020]

Holding: The Montana Supreme Court erred by holding that respondent landowners were not potentially responsible parties under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and thus did not need the Environmental Protection Agency’s approval to take remedial action.
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18-1269 [Arg: 12.3.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.25.2020]

Holding: The rule of In re Bob Richards Chrysler-Plymouth Corp., which specifies how federal tax refund proceeds should be allocated among members of an affiliated group of corporations that file a consolidated return, is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking.
Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943 [Arg: 12.4.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend a habeas court’s judgment is not a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b).
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma, No. 18-1116 [Arg: 12.4.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.26.2020]

Holding: Under the requirement in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 that plaintiffs with “actual knowledge” of an alleged fiduciary breach must file suit within three years of gaining that knowledge, a plaintiff does not necessarily have “actual knowledge” of the information contained in disclosures that he receives but does not read or cannot recall reading.
Thryv v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, No. 18-916 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.20.2020]

Holding: Federal patent law does not allow an appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's decision to institute a procedure for challenging the validity of a patent after finding that a one-year time bar does not apply.
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, No. 18-776 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: Because the phrase “questions of law” in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Limited Review Provision, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ “factual” due diligence claims for equitable tolling purposes.
Ovalles v. Barr, No. 18-1015 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: Because the phrase “questions of law” in the Immigration and Nationality Act’s Limited Review Provision, 8 U. S. C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), includes the application of a legal standard to undisputed or established facts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the petitioners’ “factual” due diligence claims for equitable tolling purposes.
Moda Health Plan v. U.S., No. 18-1028 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s now expired “Risk Corridors” statute—which set a formula for calculating payments to healthcare insurers for unexpectedly unprofitable plans during the first three years of online insurance marketplaces—created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount of their computed losses; and the petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the Court of Federal Claims.
Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S., No. 18-7739 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.26.2020]

Holding: Holguin-Hernandez's district-court argument for a specific sentence (nothing or less than 12 months) preserved his claim on appeal that the sentence imposed was unreasonably long.
Maine Community Health Options v. U.S., No. 18-1023 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s now expired “Risk Corridors” statute—which set a formula for calculating payments to healthcare insurers for unexpectedly unprofitable plans during the first three years of online insurance marketplaces—created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount of their computed losses; and the petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the Court of Federal Claims.
Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. U.S., No. 18-1038 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.27.2020]

Holding: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s now expired “Risk Corridors” statute—which set a formula for calculating payments to healthcare insurers for unexpectedly unprofitable plans during the first three years of online insurance marketplaces—created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount of their computed losses; and the petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the Court of Federal Claims.
McKinney v. Arizona, No. 18-1109 [Arg: 12.11.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.25.2020]

Holding: When a capital sentencing error under Eddings v. Oklahoma is found on collateral review, a state appellate court may conduct the reweighing of aggravating and mitigating ecidence, as permitted by Clemons v. Mississippi.
Monasky v. Taglieri, No. 18-935 [Arg: 12.11.2019 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.25.2020]

Holding: A child’s habitual residence under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction depends on the totality of the circumstances specific to the case, not on categorical requirements such as an actual agreement between the parents.

January Sitting

Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Group Inc., No. 18-1086 [Arg: 1.13.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.14.2020]

Holding: Because the trademark action at issue challenged different conduct—and raised different claims—from an earlier action between the parties, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky Brand from raising new defenses, including a defense that Lucky Brand failed to press fully in the earlier suit.
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 17-1712 [Arg: 1.13.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: Participants in a defined-benefit retirement plan who are guaranteed a fixed payment each month regardless of the plan’s value or its fiduciaries’ investment decisions lack Article III standing to bring a lawsuit against the fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., No. 18-1233 [Arg: 1.14.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.23.2020]

Holding: A plaintiff in a trademark infringement suit is not required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark as a precondition to an award of profits.
Kelly v. U.S., No. 18-1059 [Arg: 1.14.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.7.2020]

Holding: Because the scheme to reduce the number of George Washington Bridge toll lanes dedicated to Fort Lee, New Jersey, morning commuters as political retribution against Fort Lee’s mayor did not aim to obtain money or property from the federal Port Authority, William Baroni and Bridget Kelly could not have violated the federal-program fraud or wire fraud laws.
Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882 [Arg: 1.15.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 4.6.2020]

Holding: The plain meaning of 29 U. S. C. § 633a(a), the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, demands that personnel actions be untainted by any consideration of age, but but-for causation is important in determining the appropriate remedy that may be obtained.
Shular v. U.S., No. 18-6662 [Arg: 1.21.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 2.26.2020]

Holding: The definition of in “serious drug offense” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) requires only that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute; it does not require that the state offense match certain generic offenses.
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, No. 18-1048 [Arg: 1.21.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards does not conflict with domestic equitable estoppel doctrines that permit the enforcement of arbitration agreements by nonsignatories to those agreements.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, No. 18-1195 [Arg: 1.22.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether it violates the religion clauses or the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student-aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools.

February Sitting

Opati v. Republic of Sudan, No. 17-1268 [Arg: 2.24.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.18.2020]

Holding: Plaintiffs in a suit against a foreign state for personal injury or death caused by acts of terrorism under 28 U. S. C. § 1605A(c) may seek punitive damages for preenactment conduct.
Atlantic Coast Pipeline LLC v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, No. 18-1587 [Arg: 2.24.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the United States Forest Service has the authority under the Mineral Leasing Act and National Trails System Act to grant rights-of-way through national-forest lands that the Appalachian Trail traverses.
U.S. Forest Service v. Cowpasture River Preservation Association, No. 18-1584 [Arg: 2.24.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the United States Forest Service has the authority to grant rights-of-way under the Mineral Leasing Act through lands traversed by the Appalachian Trail within national forests.
U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 [Arg: 2.25.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 5.7.2020]

Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit panel’s drastic departure from the principle of party presentation constituted an abuse of discretion when the court reached out to decide a question never raised by the respondent, namely, whether 8 U. S. C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) is unconstitutionally overbroad.
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369 [Arg: 2.26.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 1915(g).
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, No. 19-161 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, as applied to the respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the suspension clause.
Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans./Aud.; Decided 6.1.2020]

Holding: Title 8 U. S. C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(C) and (D) do not preclude judicial review of a removable noncitizen’s factual challenges to an order denying relief under the international Convention Against Torture, which protects noncitizens from removal to a country where they would likely face torture.
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, No. 19-7 [Arg: 3.3.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the vesting of substantial executive authority in the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent agency led by a single director, violates the separation of powers; and (2) whether, if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is found unconstitutional on the basis of the separation of powers, 12 U.S.C. §5491(c)(3) can be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act.
Liu v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 18-1501 [Arg: 3.3.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Securities and Exchange Commission may seek and obtain disgorgement from a court as “equitable relief” for a securities law violation even though the Supreme Court has determined that such disgorgement is a penalty.
Russo v. June Medical Services LLC, No. 18-1460 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether abortion providers can be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients absent a “close” relationship with their patients and a “hindrance” to their patients’ ability to sue on their own behalf; and (2) whether objections to prudential standing are waivable – per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 10th and Federal Circuits – or non-waivable per the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the D.C., 2nd, and 6th Circuits.
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, No. 18-1323 [Arg: 3.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s decision upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital conflicts with the Supreme Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.

May Sitting

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46 [Arg: 5.4.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, when the Lanham Act states generic terms may not be registered as trademarks, the addition by an online business of a generic top-level domain (“.com”) to an otherwise generic term can create a protectable trademark.
U.S. Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, No. 19-177 [Arg: 5.5.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether - when in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International Inc., the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment bars enforcement of Congress’ directive, which required respondents, United States-based organizations that receive federal funds to fight HIV/AIDS abroad, to “have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking” as a condition of accepting those funds - the First Amendment further bars enforcement of that directive with respect to legally distinct foreign entities operating overseas that are affiliated with respondents.
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., No. 19-631 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a litigant who is directly protected by an administrative rule and has been allowed to intervene to defend it lacks standing to appeal a decision invalidating the rule if the litigant is also protected by an injunction from a different court; and (2) whether the federal government lawfully exempted religious objectors from the regulatory requirement to provide health plans that include contraceptive coverage.
Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454 [Arg: 5.6.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the Treasury had statutory authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 to expand the conscience exemption to the contraceptive-coverage mandate; (2) whether the agencies’ decision to forgo notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing the interim final rules rendered the final rules – which were issued after notice and comment – invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in affirming a nationwide preliminary injunction barring implementation of the final rules.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment's religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.
St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the First Amendment's religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.
McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526 [Arg: 5.11.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.
Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a grand-jury subpoena served on a custodian of the president’s personal records, demanding production of nearly 10 years’ worth of the president’s financial papers and his tax returns, violates Article II and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives has the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to the accountant for President Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.
Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760 [Arg: 5.12.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Committee on Financial Services and the Intelligence Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives have the constitutional and statutory authority to issue a subpoena to creditors for President Donald Trump and several of his business entities demanding private financial records belonging to the president.
Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465 [Arg: 5.13.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether enforcement of a Washington state law that threatens a fine for presidential electors who vote contrary to how the law directs is unconstitutional because a state has no power to legally enforce how a presidential elector casts his or her ballot and a state penalizing an elector for exercising his or her constitutional discretion to vote violates the First Amendment.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca, No. 19-518 [Arg: 5.13.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a presidential elector who is prevented by their appointing state from casting an electoral-college ballot that violates state law lacks standing to sue their appointing state because they hold no constitutionally protected right to exercise discretion; and (2) whether Article II or the 12th Amendment forbids a state from requiring its presidential electors to follow the state’s popular vote when casting their electoral-college ballots.

Decided without oral argument

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan, Puerto Rico v. Feliciano, No. 18-921 [ Decided 2.24.2020]

Holding: A Puerto Rico trial court had no jurisdiction to issue payment and seizure orders after a pension benefits proceeding was removed to federal district court but before the proceeding was remanded back to the Puerto Rico court; thus the orders are void.
Thompson v. Hebdon, No. 19-122 [ Decided 11.25.2019]

Holding: The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to revisit whether Alaska’s political contribution limits are consistent with this Court’s First Amendment precedents.
Davis v. U.S., No. 19-5421 [ Decided 3.23.2020]

Holding: There is no legal basis for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit’s practice of declining to review certain unpreserved factual arguments for plain error.
Republican National Committee v. Democratic National Committee, No. 19A1016 [ Decided 4.6.2020]

Holding: The District Court’s order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed to the extent it requires Wisconsin to count absentee ballots postmarked after April 7, 2020, the date of the state’s election.

Cases dismissed from merits docket

Mathena v. Malvo, No. 18-217 [Arg: 10.16.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in concluding—in direct conflict with Virginia’s highest court and other courts—that a decision of the Supreme Court, Montgomery v. Louisiana, addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision, Miller v. Alabama, applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question.
Walker v. U.S., No. 19-373

Issue(s): Whether a criminal offense that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness can qualify as a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Term Snapshot
At a Glance
Awards