Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

Since October, SCOTUSblog has been outside the Supreme Court collecting data and stories from people who traveled to see oral arguments in person during the 2019 term. Click to follow along with the month-long release of our Courtroom Access project.

October Term 2019

View this list sorted by sitting

Merits cases (to be) decided during OT 2019
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.
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.
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.
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian, No. 17-1498 [Arg: 12.3.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with remedies the Environmental Protection Agency ordered is a jurisdictionally barred “challenge” to the EPA’s cleanup under 42 U.S.C. § 9613 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; (2) whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a “potentially responsible party” that must seek EPA approval under 42 U.S.C. § 9622(e)(6) of CERCLA before engaging in remedial action, even if the EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup; and (3) whether CERCLA pre-empts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.
Aurelius Investment, LLC v. Puerto Rico, No. 18-1475 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the de facto officer doctrine allows courts to deny meaningful relief to successful separation-of-powers challengers who are suffering ongoing injury at the hands of unconstitutionally appointed principal officers.
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.
Banister v. Davis, No. 18-6943 [Arg: 12.4.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby.
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc., No. 19-631

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

Issue(s): Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
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.
Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309

Issue(s): (1) Whether the First Amendment invalidates a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a “bare majority” on the state’s three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the “other major political party”; (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit erred in holding that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring that no more than a “bare majority” of three of the state courts may be made up of judges affiliated with any one political party is not severable from a provision that judges who are not members of the majority party on those courts must be members of the other “major political party,” when the former requirement existed for more than 50 years without the latter, and the former requirement, without the latter, continues to govern appointments to two other courts; and (3) whether the respondent, James Adams, has demonstrated Article III standing.
Chiafalo v. Washington, No. 19-465

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.
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.
City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton, No. 19-357

Issue(s): Whether an entity that is passively retaining possession of property in which a bankruptcy estate has an interest has an affirmative obligation under the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay, 11 U.S.C § 362, to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.
Colorado Department of State v. Baca, No. 19-518

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.
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.
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, No. 18-260 [Arg: 11.6.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1334 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the appointments clause governs the appointment of members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico.
Ford Motor Company v. Bandemer, No. 19-369

Issue(s): Whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement of the 14th Amendment's due process clause is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, No. 19-368

Issue(s): Whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement for a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS v. Outokumpu Stainless USA LLC, No. 18-1048 [Arg: 1.21.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards permits a nonsignatory to an arbitration agreement to compel arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc., No. 18-1150 [Arg: 12.2.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the government edicts doctrine extends to—and thus renders uncopyrightable—works that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., No. 18-956

Issue(s): (1) Whether copyright protection extends to a software interface; and (2) whether, as the jury found, the petitioner’s use of a software interface in the context of creating a new computer program constitutes fair use.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kelly v. U.S., No. 18-1059 [Arg: 1.14.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a public official “defraud[s]” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.
Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. U.S., No. 18-1038 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether a temporary cap on appropriations availability from certain specified funding sources may be construed, based on its legislative history, to abrogate retroactively the government’s payment obligations under a money-mandating statute, for parties that have already performed their part of the bargain under the statute.
Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-431

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.
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.
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).
Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., No. 18-1086 [Arg: 1.13.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles can bar a defendant from raising defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the parties.
Maine Community Health Options v. U.S., No. 18-1023 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether—given the “cardinal rule” disfavoring implied repeals, which applies with “especial force” to appropriations acts and requires that repeal not to be found unless the later enactment is “irreconcilable” with the former—an appropriations rider whose text bars the agency’s use of certain funds to pay a statutory obligation, but does not repeal or amend the statutory obligation, and is thus not inconsistent with it, can nonetheless be held to impliedly repeal the obligation by elevating the perceived “intent” of the rider (drawn from unilluminating legislative history) above its text, and the text of the underlying statute; and (2) whether—when the federal government has an unambiguous statutory payment obligation, under a program involving reciprocal commitments by the government and a private company participating in the program—the presumption against retroactivity applies to the interpretation of an appropriations rider that is claimed to have impliedly repealed the government’s obligation.
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.
McAleenan 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.
McGirt v. Oklahoma, No. 18-9526

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.
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.
Moda Health Plan v. U.S., No. 18-1028 [Arg: 12.10.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether Congress can evade its unambiguous statutory promise to pay health insurers for losses already incurred simply by enacting appropriations riders restricting the sources of funds available to satisfy the government’s obligation.
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.
Nasrallah v. Barr, No. 18-1432 [Arg: 3.2.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, No. 18-280 [Arg: 12.2.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
Official Committee of Debtors v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1496 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the appointments clause governs the appointment of members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico.
Opati v. Republic of Sudan, No. 17-1268 [Arg: 2.24.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively, thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute.
Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, No. 19-267

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.
Ovalles v. Barr, No. 18-1015 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the criminal alien bar, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), tempered by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), prohibits a court from reviewing an agency decision finding that a movant lacked diligence for equitable tolling purposes, notwithstanding the lack of a factual dispute.
Pereida v. Barr, No. 19-438

Issue(s): Whether a criminal conviction bars a noncitizen from applying for relief from removal when the record of conviction is merely ambiguous as to whether it corresponds to an offense listed in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
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.
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.
Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924 [Arg: 10.7.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the 14th Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict.
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.
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.
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).
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.
Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc., No. 18-1233 [Arg: 1.14.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether, under Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), willful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of an infringer’s profits for a violation of Section 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
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.
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.
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.
Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, No. 18-540

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’ statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of states, is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s precedent that ERISA does not pre-empt rate regulation.
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.
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.
St. James School v. Biel, No. 19-348

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.
Tanzin v. Tanvir, No. 19-71

Issue(s): Whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, permits suits seeking money damages against individual federal employees.
Texas v. New Mexico, No. 22O65

Issue(s): Whether the River Master correctly allocated evaporation losses under the Pecos River Compact.
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A., No. 17-1712 [Arg: 1.13.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): (1) Whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek injunctive relief against fiduciary misconduct under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; (2) whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek restoration of plan losses caused by fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(2) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; and (3) whether petitioners have demonstrated Article III standing.
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.
Thryv v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, No. 18-916 [Arg: 12.9.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)’s time bar did not apply.
Torres v. Madrid, No. 19-292

Issue(s): Whether an unsuccessful attempt to detain a suspect by use of physical force is a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits and the New Mexico Supreme Court hold, or whether physical force must be successful in detaining a suspect to constitute a “seizure,” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals hold.
Trump v. Deutsche Bank AG, No. 19-760

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.
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, No. 19-715

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. 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.
Trump v. Pennsylvania, No. 19-454

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.
Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635

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.
U.S. Agency for Int'l Development v. Alliance for Open Society Int'l, No. 19-177

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.
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. Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., No. 19-46

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. v. Aurelius Investment, LLC, No. 18-1514 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether members of Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico are “Officers of the United States” within the meaning of the appointments clause of the United States Constitution, Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2.
U.S. v. Briggs, No. 19-108

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
U.S. v. Collins, No. 19-184

Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces erred in concluding – contrary to its own longstanding precedent – that the Uniform Code of Military Justice allows prosecution of a rape that occurred between 1986 and 2006 only if it was discovered and charged within five years.
U.S. v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67 [Arg: 2.25.2020 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional.
UTIER v. Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, No. 18-1521 [Arg: 10.15.2019 Trans./Aud.]

Issue(s): Whether the de facto officer doctrine allows for unconstitutionally appointed principal Officers of the United States to continue acting, leaving the party that challenges their appointment with an ongoing injury and without an appropriate relief.
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