View this list sorted by sitting.
Issue(s): Whether applying a public-accommodation law
to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates
the free speech clause of the First
Amendment.
|
Issue(s): Whether a work of art is “transformative” when it
conveys a different meaning or message from its
source material (as the Supreme Court, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and
other courts of appeals have held), or whether a court
is forbidden from considering the meaning of the
accused work where it “recognizably deriv[es] from”
its source material (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has held).
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling from Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs applies to the one-year statutory
deadline in 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) for seeking
retroactive disability benefits, and, if so, whether the
government has rebutted that presumption; and (2) whether, if 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(1) is amenable to
equitable tolling, this case should be remanded
so the agency can consider the particular facts
and circumstances in the first instance.
|
Issue(s): 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.
|
Issue(s): Whether an individual may be subject to liability for the
fraud of another that is barred from discharge in
bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), by imputation, without any act, omission, intent or knowledge of her own.
|
Bittner v. U.S.,
No. 21-1195
Issue(s): Whether a “violation” under the Bank Secrecy Act is the failure to
file an annual Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (no matter the number of foreign accounts), or whether there is a separate violation for each
individual account that was not properly reported.
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Indian Child Welfare
Act of 1978’s placement preferences —
which disfavor non-Indian adoptive families in child-placement proceedings involving an “Indian child”
and thereby disadvantage those children — discriminate on the basis of race in violation of the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether ICWA’s placement preferences exceed
Congress’s Article I authority by invading the arena
of child placement — the “virtually exclusive province
of the States,” as stated in Sosna v. Iowa — and otherwise commandeering state courts
and state agencies to carry out a federal child-placement program.
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred by invalidating
six sets of Indian Child Welfare
Act provisions — 25 U.S.C. §§1912(a), (d),
(e)-(f), 1915(a)-(b), (e), and 1951(a) — as impermissibly
commandeering states (including via its equally divided
affirmance); (2) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by reaching the
merits of the plaintiffs’ claims that ICWA’s placement
preferences violate equal protection; and (3) whether the en banc 5th Circuit erred by affirming (via
an equally divided court) the district court’s judgment
invalidating two of ICWA’s placement preferences, 25
U.S.C. §1915(a)(3), (b)(iii), as failing to satisfy the rational-basis standard of Morton v. Mancari.
|
Ciminelli v. U.S.,
No. 21-1170
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit’s “right to control”
theory of fraud — which treats the deprivation of complete and accurate information bearing on a person’s
economic decision as a species of property fraud —
states a valid basis for liability under the federal wire
fraud statute.
|
Cruz v. Arizona,
No. 21-846
Issue(s): Whether the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding that Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1 (g) precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether MoneyGram Official Checks are “a money order, traveler’s check, or other similar written instrument (other than a third party bank check) on which a banking or financial organization or a business association is directly liable,” pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 2503; (2) whether the court should command Wisconsin and Pennsylvania not to assert any claim over abandoned and unclaimed property related to MoneyGram Official Checks; and (3) whether all future sums payable on abandoned MoneyGram Official Checks should be remitted to Delaware
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether various provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act of
1978 — namely,
the minimum standards of Section 1912(a), (d), (e), and (f);
the placement-preference provisions of Section 1915(a)
and (b); and the recordkeeping provisions of Sections
1915(e) and 1951(a) — violate the anticommandeering doctrine of the 10th Amendment; (2) whether the individual plaintiffs have Article III
standing to challenge ICWA’s placement preferences
for “other Indian families” and for
“Indian foster home[s]”; and (3) whether Section 1915(a)(3) and (b)(iii) are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and
therefore consistent with equal protection.
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether, in light of compelling historical
evidence to the contrary, the Supreme Court should reexamine
its holding that spending clause legislation gives rise
to privately enforceable rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) whether, assuming spending clause statutes
ever give rise to private rights enforceable via Section
1983, the Federal Nursing Home Amendments Act of 1987’s transfer and medication rules do so.
|
Issue(s): Whether a supervisor making over $200,000 each
year is entitled to overtime pay because the
standalone regulatory exemption set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 541.601 remains subject to the detailed
requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 541.604 when
determining whether highly compensated supervisors
are exempt from the Fair Labor
Standards Act’s overtime-pay
requirements.
|
Jones v. Hendrix,
No. 21-857
Issue(s): Whether federal inmates
who did not — because established circuit precedent
stood firmly against them — challenge their convictions
on the ground that the statute of conviction did not
criminalize their activity may apply for habeas relief
under 28
U.S.C § 2241 after the Supreme Court later makes clear in a
retroactively applicable decision that the circuit
precedent was wrong and that they are legally
innocent of the crime of conviction.
|
Issue(s): Whether the due process clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits a state from requiring a corporation to consent to personal jurisdiction to do business in the state.
|
Issue(s): Whether the state of Alabama’s 2021
redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States
House of Representatives violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
|
Issue(s): Whether Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m) limits
the appellate courts’ jurisdiction over any sale order or
order deemed “integral” to a sale order, such that it is
not subject to waiver, and even when a remedy could
be fashioned that does not affect the validity of the sale.
|
Moore v. Harper,
No. 21-1271
Issue(s): Whether a state’s judicial branch may nullify the
regulations governing the “Manner of holding
Elections for Senators and Representatives ...
prescribed ... by the Legislature thereof,” and replace them with regulations of
the state courts’ own devising, based on vague state
constitutional provisions purportedly vesting the state
judiciary with power to prescribe whatever rules it
deems appropriate to ensure a “fair” or “free” election.
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic
economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide
industry state a violation of the dormant commerce
clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle
described in the Supreme Court’s decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that
is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state
housing of farm animals, state a claim under Pike v. Bruce
Church, Inc.
|
Percoco v. U.S.,
No. 21-1158
Issue(s): Whether a private citizen who holds no elected office or
government employment, but has informal political or
other influence over governmental decisionmaking,
owes a fiduciary duty to the general public such that he
can be convicted of honest-services fraud.
|
Issue(s): Whether the statute of
limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim seeking DNA testing of
crime-scene evidence begins to run at the end of state-court litigation denying DNA testing, including any
appeals (as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held), or whether
it begins to run at the moment the state trial court
denies DNA testing, despite any subsequent appeal
(as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, joining the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, held
below).
|
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).
|
Issue(s): Whether a federal district court has jurisdiction to
hear a suit in which the respondent in an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission administrative proceeding seeks to enjoin that proceeding, based on an alleged constitutional defect in the statutory provisions
that govern the removal of the administrative law judge
who will conduct the proceeding.
|
Issue(s): (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.
|
Issue(s): (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 a university can reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the
student body, without proving that the alternative
would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality
or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity.
|
Texas v. Haaland,
No. 21-378
Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress has the power under the Indian commerce clause or otherwise to enact
laws governing state child-custody proceedings
merely because the child is or may be an Indian; (2) whether the Indian classifications used in the
Indian Child Welfare Act and its implementing regulations violate
the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee; (3) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the anticommandeering doctrine
by requiring states to implement Congress’s
child-custody regime; and (4) whether ICWA and its implementing regulations violate the nondelegation doctrine by allowing individual tribes to alter the placement
preferences enacted by Congress.
|
Issue(s): Whether the government has authority to dismiss a
False Claims Act suit after initially declining to proceed with the action, and what standard applies if the government has that
authority.
|
Wilkins v. U.S.,
No. 21-1164
Issue(s): Whether the Quiet Title Act’s statute of
limitations is a jurisdictional requirement or a claim-processing rule.
|