The court has agreed to hear oral argument in the October 2025-26 term for the cases below. Note that CVSG designates cases where there was a call for the views of the solicitor general.
View previous terms
View this list sorted by case name | sorted by status.
October Sitting
|
Issue(s): Whether a trial court abridges a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant's testimony during an overnight recess.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether petitioners, as federal candidates, have pleaded
sufficient factual allegations to show Article III
standing to challenge state time, place, and manner
regulations concerning their federal elections.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff's claim that she and her tenants did not receive mail because U.S. Postal Service employees intentionally did not deliver it to a designated address arises out of "the loss" or "miscarriage" of letters or postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) whether Subsection 2244(b)(3)(E) deprives this court of certiorari jurisdiction over the grant or denial of an authorization by a court of appeals to file a second or successive motion to vacate under Section 2255.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of
the Constitution's ex post facto clause.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable
cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the
emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
|
November Sitting
|
Issue(s): Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether Boyle v. United Technologies Corp. should be extended to allow federal interests emanating from the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities
exception to preempt state tort claims against a government contractor for conduct that breached its contract and violated military orders.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void
default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a district court's final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers
Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.
|
|
Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
No. 23-1197
[Arg: 11.10.2025 Transcript |Audio]
Issue(s): Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a district court may consider disparities created by the First Step Act’s prospective changes in sentencing law when deciding if “extraordinary and compelling reasons” warrant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) can include
reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
|
December Sitting
|
Issue(s): Whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute "persecution" under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for "materially contributing" to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access, without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it; and (2) whether the 4th Circuit erred in holding that mere knowledge of another's direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).
|
|
Issue(s): Whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether this court’s decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking purely prospective relief where the plaintiff has been punished before under the law challenged as unconstitutional; and (2) whether Heck v. Humphrey bars Section 1983 claims by plaintiffs even where they never had access to federal habeas relief.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States should be overruled. (2) Whether a federal court may prevent a person’s removal from public office, either through relief at equity or at law.
|
|
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission (Campaign Finance)
No. 24-621
[Arg: 12.09.2025 ]
Issue(s): Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications" as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action. CVSG: 5/22/2025
|
January Sitting
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against "any person acting under [an] officer" of the United States "for or relating to any act under color of such office"; and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prevents a state from consistently designating girls' and boys' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth; and (2) whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment prevents a state from offering separate boys' and girls' sports teams based on biological sex determined at birth.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether laws that seek to protect women's and girls' sports by limiting participation to women and girls based on sex violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the New Jersey Transit
Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate
sovereign immunity purposes.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.
|
|
M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund
No. 23-1209
[Arg: 01.20.2026 ]
Issue(s): Whether 29 U.S.C. § 1391’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the
end of the plan year” requires the plan to base the computation
on the actuarial assumptions most recently adopted before the
end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial
assumptions that were adopted after, but based on information
available as of, the end of the year.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should stay a district court ruling preventing the president from firing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors.
|
Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument
|
Issue(s): Whether district courts have the authority to excuse the 30-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the Helms-Burton Act abrogates foreign sovereign immunity in cases against Cuban instrumentalities, or whether parties proceeding under that act must also satisfy an exception under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel
in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the
goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that
cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a plaintiff under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act must prove that the defendant trafficked in property confiscated by the Cuban government as to which the plaintiff owns a claim, or instead that the defendant trafficked in property that the plaintiff would have continued to own at the time of trafficking in a counterfactual world "as if there had been no expropriation."
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to
appeal and the government does not object.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether a federal statute, 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether an alien who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.–Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that an alien who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.
|
|
Issue(s): (1) Whether taking and selling a home to
satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the
surplus value as a windfall, violates the takings
clause of the Fifth Amendment when the
compensation is based on the artificially depressed
auction sale price rather than the property’s fair
market value; and (2) whether the forfeiture of real property
worth far more than needed to satisfy a tax debt but
sold for a fraction of its real value constitutes an
excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment,
particularly when the debt was never actually owed.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), the federal statute that
prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is
an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to
respondent.
|
|
Issue(s): Whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.
|
Cases dismissed from merits docket
|
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the Higher Education Act of 1965 does not permit the assessment of borrower defenses to repayment before default, in administrative proceedings, or on a group basis.
|