A petition for certiorari, or cert petition, is a legal brief filed in the Supreme Court asking the justices to review (and ultimately overturn) a lower court ruling. In a typical term, the justices receive over 8,000 cert petitions and grant between 60 and 80 of these. The justices typically decide whether to grant or reject a petition at approximately two dozen private conferences, which generally take place on either Thursday or Friday, depending on the time of year; they then usually release a list of orders from that conference, including an announcement of which petitions for review have been granted or denied, the following Monday. All of the cases which have so far been granted for the October 2025-26 term can be found here.
View this list sorted by case name.
Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference (15)
This category consists of petitions that the justices have considered at at least one conference and decided to consider again at their next conference. We provide these cases first because, for more than a decade, the court has had a general practice of agreeing to hear a case only after it has "relisted" the case at least once. In other words, these petitions may have the strongest chance of being granted.
| Docket | Case Page | Issue(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 24-1099 | Smith v. Scott | (1) Whether, viewing the facts from the officers’ perspective at the time, the officers acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment by using bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially armed and actively resisting individual only until handcuffing could be accomplished; and (2) whether the panel erred in denying qualified immunity where no case clearly established that pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the Fourth Amendment. |
| 24-1155 | Vincent v. Bondi | Whether the Second Amendment allows the federal government to permanently disarm petitioner, who has one 17-year-old nonviolent felony conviction for trying to pass a bad check. |
| 24-1268 | Reed v. Goertz | Whether Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as authoritatively construed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, violates due process by arbitrarily denying prisoners access to postconviction DNA testing, rendering illusory prisoners’ state-created right to prove their innocence through newly discovered evidence. |
| 25-29 | Villarreal v. Alaniz | (1) Whether it obviously violates the First Amendment to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer; and (2) whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment, or whether qualified immunity shields those officials. |
| 25-49 | Sittenfeld v. U.S. | Whether, when the government alleges bribery based solely on lawful campaign contributions, the defendant may be convicted based on evidence that is ambiguous as to whether the public official conditioned any official act on the campaign contributions. |
| 25-51 | Klein v. Martin | Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit violated the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s deferential standard by overturning a state-court decision based on the supposed lack of “nuance” and “exhaustiveness” in the court’s written opinion, rather than the reasonableness of its legal conclusion. |
| 25-77 | Foote v. Ludlow School Committee | Whether a public school violates parents’ constitutional rights when, without parental knowledge or consent, the school encourages a student to transition to a new “gender” or participates in that process. |
| 25-153 | Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington | Whether ammunition feeding devices with the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds are “Arms” presumptively entitled to constitutional protection under the plain text of the Second Amendment. |
| 25-162 | Tennessee v. Kennedy | (1) Whether, pursuant to United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., this court should vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot; and (2) whether, in the alternative, this court should vacate and remand for further consideration in light of Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic. |
| 25-170 | Suncor Energy Inc. v. County Commissioners of Boulder County | Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate. |
| 25-198 | Duncan v. Bonta | (1) Whether a ban on the possession of exceedingly common ammunition feeding devices violates the Second Amendment; and (2) whether a law dispossessing citizens, without compensation, of property that they lawfully acquired and long possessed without incident violates the takings clause. |
| 25-238 | Viramontes v. Cook County | Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. |
| 25-269 | Zherka v. Bondi | Whether the Second Amendment permits the government to disarm an American citizen because he has been convicted of a non-violent fraud offense. |
| 25-297 | Zorn v. Linton | Whether the Second Circuit’s qualified immunity analysis conflicts with this court’s repeated instruction that courts must define rights with specificity and look for close factual analogues in determining whether a Fourth Amendment right is clearly established. |
| 25-425 | Duarte v. U.S. | Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)’s categorical ban on the possession of firearms by felons is unconstitutional as applied to a defendant with non-violent predicate offenses underlying his conviction. |
Petitions We're Watching for the Next Conference (49)
This category consists of petitions that the justices will consider at the next conference that we believe have a decent chance of being granted (usually after being relisted at least once). The factors that we consider in deciding whether to include a petition on this list include the importance and potential impact of the question presented by the petition, whether the courts of appeals appear to be divided on that question, whether the case appears to be a good candidate for the court's review (there are not procedural issues or irregularities), and whether there are "friend of the court" briefs filed in support of the petition.
| Docket | Case Page | Issue(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 25-585 | SunTrust Bank v. Bickerstaff | Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a state court rule permitting a proposed class representative to effectively opt out of arbitration on behalf of all unnamed class members notwithstanding contrary, express requirements in the arbitration agreement. |
| 25-567 | Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission | Whether the Communications Act of 1934 violates the Seventh Amendment and Article III by authorizing the FCC to order the payment of monetary penalties for failing to reasonably safeguard customer data, without guaranteeing the defendant carrier a right to a jury trial. |
| 25-514 | Microchip Technology Incorporated v. Schuman | Whether, in a case involving a release of claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, a plan sponsor’s alleged breach of fiduciary duty may prevent the enforcement of an otherwise knowing and voluntary release, where the releasing parties were aware of the facts underlying the alleged breach when they signed the release. |
| 25-476 | Eli Lilly & Co. v. Richards | (1) Whether this court should overrule the holding of Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, that district courts may authorize and facilitate notice to nonparties on behalf of plaintiffs; and (2) whether, if this court does not overrule Hoffmann-La Roche, what standard plaintiffs must satisfy in order for a district court to authorize and facilitate notice to nonparties on behalf of plaintiffs. |
| 25-466 | Sripetch v. Securities and Exchange Commission | Whether the SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm. |
| 25-457 | Johnson v. High Desert State Prison | Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) requires each incarcerated plaintiff filing in forma pauperis to pay the full amount of a filing fee whether or not he is filing a joint civil action with other plaintiffs. |
| 25-451 | Howard v. Macomb County | (1) Whether the government violated the Takings Clause’s “categorical duty” to pay just compensation for property taken in excess of the taxes, fees, and penalties, per Tyler v. Hennepin Cnty., by enacting a procedure that leaves most former owners without their homes and without compensation; and (2) whether, to the extent that Nelson v. City of New York requires tax debtors to exhaust state remedies prior to bringing a constitutional takings challenge in federal court, Nelson should be overruled. |
| 25-441 | Guardian Flight, LLC v. Health Care Service Corporation | (1) Whether a breach of Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan terms constitutes an injury in fact to an ERISA plan beneficiary, even where the beneficiary will not suffer any pocketbook injury; and (2) whether, when Congress provided that the No Surprises Act independent dispute resolution process awards are “binding” and mandated that insurers “shall” pay them within 30 days, it intended to allow providers to sue in court to enforce the awards. |
| 25-430 | Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga | Whether dismissal of a claim after assertion of the state-secrets privilege requires a district court to adjudicate the merits of the claim using the privileged information where the privileged information is relevant to a defense. |
| 25-428 | Percipient.ai v. U.S. | Whether the en banc Federal Circuit erred in holding that a person must meet the requirements for challenging a solicitation or contract award under the first two prongs of 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b)(1) to qualify as an “interested party” who can challenge violations under the broader third prong. |
| 25-419 | Shelby County v. Couser | Whether a state or local law regulating the location or routing of an interstate pipeline is a preempted “safety standard” under the Pipeline Safety Act when a court concludes that the law was primarily motivated by safety concerns. |
| 25-406 | Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T | Whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III. |
| 25-399 | Moses v. U.S. | (1) Whether a defendant’s actual use of an area adjacent to his home is relevant to whether that area is curtilage under the Fourth Amendment, or whether a court should disregard any evidence beyond a police officer’s objective observations at the time of the search; and (2) whether a portion of a driveway immediately adjacent to a home is curtilage under the Fourth Amendment. |
| 25-391 | Citigroup Inc. v. Otto Candies, LLC | Whether the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act bars a civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim based on conduct that is actionable as securities fraud by another potential plaintiff, even if the particular RICO plaintiff could not bring a securities-fraud claim. |
| 25-382 | Stroble v. Oklahoma Tax Commission | Whether Oklahoma may tax the income of a Muscogee (Creek) Nation citizen who lives and works within the Muscogee (Creek) Reservation that McGirt v. Oklahoma held remains Indian country. |
| 25-381 | AdvanFort Co. v. Zamil Offshore Servs. Co. | Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires the existence of a single foreign court in which a plaintiff has the right to bring its entire case against all defendants, or whether the plaintiff may be forced to split its case across multiple courts. |
| 25-369 | United Natural Foods v. National Labor Relations Board | (1) Whether Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo permits a court to (a) accept an agency’s reasonable construction of a statute without exhausting all relevant tools to find the single, best meaning or (b) give precedential weight to decisions affording deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., when the court evaluates different agency action; and (2) whether statutes that prescribe a definite term for a federal office, with no language providing for removal, preclude the officer’s removal without cause before the term ends. |
| 25-363 | Castro-Aleman v. U.S. | Whether an immigration judge’s failure to inform an alien of the right to seek discretionary relief from removal violates due process and thus can constitute “fundamental unfairness” under 8 U.S.C. §1326(d). |
| 25-355 | Dondero v. Jernigan | (1) Whether a judge’s order declining to recuse should be reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion; and (2) whether, when a litigant seeks review of a decision not to recuse through mandamus, appellate courts should require him to apply two layers of deference to that decision and show that it was both an abuse of discretion and that the abuse was “clear and indisputable.” |
| 25-327 | Express Scripts v. California | Whether a remand order appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), like the orders at issue in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, is subject to an automatic stay pending appeal. |
| 25-320 | Alaska v. U.S. | Whether the United States can regulate fishing on Alaska’s navigable waters under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, when its statutory authority is limited to “public lands” and that term is defined as “lands, waters, and interests therein … the title to which is in the United States.” |
| 25-293 | General Dynamics Corp. v. Scharpf | Whether plaintiffs adequately plead that defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment, for purposes of tolling the 15 U.S.C. § 15b (Clayton Act) statute of limitations, by alleging that defendants maintained an unwritten agreement. |
| 25-267 | Green v. Tanner | (1) Whether in a case alleging that an officer used excessive force based on a mistake of fact, if the reasonableness of the officer’s mistake is a legal question for a court at summary judgment or a factual question for a jury; and (2) whether an officer’s use of deadly force should be deemed reasonable as a matter of law based on facts that were not known to the officer at the time or based on a view that “[t]here is no constitutional … right that prevents an officer from using deadly force when faced with an apparently loaded weapon." |
| 25-259 | Littlejohn v. School Board of Leon County | Whether, when a plaintiff alleges that the application of a state policy infringed a fundamental right “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,’” a court can deny relief because the infringement did not “shock the conscience." |
| 25-257 | Wells Pharma of Houston, LLC. v. Zyla Life Sciences, LLC. | Whether the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts private state-law unfair competition and consumer protection claims premised on the marketing of compounded drugs without premarket approval. |
| 25-248 | District of Columbia v. R.W. | (1) Whether a court assessing the existence of reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment may exclude a fact known to the officer, or instead must assess all the evidence when weighing the totality of the circumstances; and (2) whether, under the totality-of-the-circumstances test, the officer in this case had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop. |
| 25-240 | Feldman v. Sullivan | Whether the parties’ generic incorporation of an arbitration association’s rules in their arbitration agreement is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties intended to delegate the issue of class arbitrability to an arbitrator, or whether the generic incorporation of such rules is not clear and unmistakable evidence to delegate that question to an arbitrator. |
| 25-227 | Poore v. U.S. | Whether the limits on agency deference announced in Kisor v. Wilkie and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo constrain the deference courts may accord the Sentencing Commission's interpretation of its own rules via commentary. |
| 25-222 | Silvers v. U.S. | Whether taking judicial notice to conclusively determine that a location is within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendments’ right to a trial by jury. |
| 25-203 | McGee v. Alger County Treasurer | (1) Whether Michigan’s claims process violates the takings and due process clauses; and (2) whether, to the extent it authorizes Michigan’s confiscatory claim statute, the court should overrule Nelson v. City of New York. |
| 25-187 | Katergaris v. City of New York | Whether, under the mailbox rule, which presumes that a letter placed in the mail is promptly received, a sworn denial of receipt creates a triable question of fact that rebuts the presumption of receipt. |
| 25-173 | Flynt v. Bonta | Whether a state law that discriminates against firms engaged in interstate commerce by forcing firms to choose between being part of the enacting state’s intrastate market, or the interstate markets of the other states, but not both, violates the dormant commerce clause. |
| 25-166 | Parada v. U.S. | Whether the Court should overrule Williams v. Florida, which held that a 12-member panel “is not a necessary ingredient” of the Sixth Amendment jury trial right. |
| 25-156 | Freedom Foundation v. Turner | Whether a law that prevents anyone but incumbent labor unions from accessing information necessary to communicate with public employees before they are recruited into union membership is unlawful viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. |
| 25-114 | La Anyane v. Georgia | (1) Whether Georgia's implied consent statute – under which a driver arrested for driving under the influence who refuses to consent to a blood draw has his driver’s license suspended for at least a year, with the refusal usable as evidence of guilt at a criminal trial – violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine; and (2) whether Georgia's implied consent statute, due to substantial adverse consequences of refusal to consent, is impermissibly coercive so as to render consent involuntary. |
| 25-112 | Chatrie v. U.S. | (1) Whether the execution of a geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the exclusionary rule should apply to the evidence derived from a geofence warrant. |
| 25-14 | Hierholzer v. Loeffler | Whether a small-business owner who was denied entry into the Small Business Administration's Section 8(a) Business Development Program for failing to prove “social disadvantage” has Article III standing to challenge a race-based presumption that excuses certain applicants from making that showing. |
| 25-2 | Reese v. U.S. | Whether the court should overrule Pinkerton v. United States, under which an individual may be convicted of crimes he did not commit – or even participate in – so long as they are the foreseeable result of a conspiracy he joined. |
| 24-1192 | Ovation Fund Management II, LLC v. Nossaman LLP | Whether a federal court overseeing an equity receivership has the power to enjoin and extinguish claims that belong to non-receivership entities against non-receivership third parties without the claimants’ consent. |
| 24-1097 | Monsanto Co. v. Salas | Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim where the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval. |
| 24-1095 | Koetter v. Manistee County Treasurer | (1) Whether the government violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment or takings clause of the 5th Amendment by denying just compensation to property owners who miss a narrow and premature window to preserve their right to just compensation; and (2) whether, to the extent it authorizes Michigan’s confiscatory claim statute, the Supreme Court should overrule Nelson v. City of New York. |
| 24-1068 | Monsanto Company v. Durnell | Whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a state-law failure-to-warn claim when the Environmental Protection Agency has repeatedly concluded that the warning is not required and the warning cannot be added to a product without EPA approval. CVSG: 12/01/2025 |
| 24-1062 | The Hertz Corporation v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | Whether an unwritten pre-Code exception overrides the Bankruptcy Code’s express statutory text and allows creditors in solvent-debtor cases to recover amounts that the Code explicitly disallows. CVSG: 12/03/2025 |
| 24-1030 | Parker-Hannifin Corporation v. Johnson | Whether pleading an imprudent-investment claim under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, based on how the investment’s returns compared to some performance benchmark, requires allegations showing that the benchmark is a sound basis for comparison for that investment. CVSG: 12/09/2025 |
| 24-917 | Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC v. NTE Carolinas II, LLC | Whether a plaintiff can prevail on a monopolization claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act by aggregating multiple distinct, independently lawful acts into an unlawful whole. CVSG: 12/01/2025 |
| 24-909 | Agudas Chasidei Chabad of U.S. v. Russian Federation | Whether a “foreign state”
lacks immunity from U.S. jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act if
either U.S.-nexus test in 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3) is met, or instead a “foreign state” loses its immunity only if the
first U.S.-nexus test is met—i.e., if the expropriated
property, or property exchanged for it, is found in the
United States. CVSG: 12/09/2025 |
| 24-889 | Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma | (1) Whether, when a generic drug label fully carves out a patented use, allegations that the generic drugmaker calls its product a “generic version” and cites public information about the branded drug (e.g., sales) are enough to plead induced infringement of the patented use; and (2) whether a complaint states a claim for induced infringement of a patented method if it does not allege any instruction or other statement by the defendant that encourages, or even mentions, the patented use. CVSG: 12/05/2025 |
| 24-856 | Cisco Systems v. Doe I | (1) Whether the Alien Tort Statute allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting; (2) whether, if ATS aiding-and-abetting claims are cognizable, mere knowledge rather than purpose suffices to show the requisite mens rea; and (3) whether the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting. CVSG: 12/09/2025 |
| 24-620 | Pizarro v. The Home Depot | Whether, consistent with trust law, burden-shifting applies to the element of causation under 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a). CVSG: 12/9/2025 |
Featured Petitions (36)
This category consists of petitions which have not (yet) been scheduled to be heard at a particular conference, but which we believe (for the same reasons as the list of "Petitions We're Watching for the Next Conference") have a decent chance of eventually being granted.
| Docket | Case Page | Issue(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 25-774 | Johnson v. U.S. | Whether police conduct a Fourth Amendment search when they use a drug detection canine to sniff the door of an apartment home in a multi-unit building to determine whether there is contraband inside. |
| 25-627 | Macy’s Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board | (1) Whether an employer’s practice that has no noted effect on employees’ collective-bargaining rights and is not motivated by anti-union animus is inherently destructive of union rights and violates the National Labor Relations Act; and (2) whether the National Labor Relations Board has the statutory or constitutional authority to order employers to pay “any … direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms” their employees incur “as a result of” an unlawful labor practice. |
| 25-594 | Crockett v. Krueger | (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity to the Petitioner law enforcement officers on the issue of excessive force without conducting an individualized qualified immunity analysis, instead engaging in a collective qualified immunity analysis which considered the aggregate actions of multiple officers at the scene; (2) whether, in denying qualified immunity the 10th Circuit evaluated whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at an impermissibly high level of generality; and (3) whether the existing law would make it clear to a reasonable law enforcement officer when a suspect is “effectively subdued” such that using further force against them would be objectively unreasonable. |
| 25-588 | Summers v. Montana | Whether a driver who is lawfully stopped for a traffic infraction remains seized for Fourth Amendment purposes when the officer concludes the purpose of the traffic stop, but prolongs the stop by immediately questioning the driver on unrelated matters. |
| 25-582 | Whitmer v. Enbridge Energy, LP | Whether a state is the real party in interest, and therefore entitled to sovereign immunity, where a private plaintiff sues state officials in federal court for relief that would diminish, but not necessarily extinguish, the state’s ownership and control of its sovereign lands. |
| 25-576 | Buyer v. U.S. | Whether a stock trading on an exchange whose physical headquarters is located in Manhattan suffices to establish venue in the Southern District of New York for insider-trading charges related to that stock. |
| 25-573 | Trump v. Carroll | (1) Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 415 overrides Rule 403’s requirement to balance the probative value of temporally remote propensity evidence against its prejudicial effect before such evidence can be admitted?; (2) Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 413(d) authorizes the admission of temporally remote propensity evidence that the defendant committed the “crime” of “sexual assault” when the alleged prior act did not constitute a crime or a sexual assault?; and (3) Whether Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) permits the admission of “modus operandi” or “corroboration” evidence of prior “bad acts” without establishing a non-propensity purpose of the evidence, such as identity, absence of mistake, or another enumerated exception in Rule 404(b)(2)? |
| 25-541 | Schoenthal v. Raoul | Whether Illinois’ flat ban on ordinary citizens carrying firearms on public transportation violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. |
| 25-521 | Google LLC v. Epic Games | (1) Whether under the Rule of Reason, a three-step, burden-shifting framework, an antitrust plaintiff is required to prove that less restrictive alternatives could accomplish the procompetitive benefits of the challenged conduct or whether there is no such requirement; (2) whether a court may impose a duty on an antitrust defendant to deal directly with its competitors without first determining that such court-mandated dealings will remedy the consequences of conduct found to violate the antitrust laws; and (3) whether the court must assess a private plaintiff’s Article III standing with respect to each proposed remedy before awarding injunctive relief. |
| 25-487 | Hathon v. Michigan | Whether the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is a self-executing stand-alone claim that permits property owners to sue a state directly for just compensation when the state otherwise mandates reliance on an inadequate statutory remedy. |
| 25-479 | National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo | (1) Whether, when respondent – a former New York official – implemented her scheme against the National Rifle Association of America, it was clearly established that the First Amendment did not allow a government official to coerce a disfavored speaker’s service providers to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf; and (2) whether, when it is obvious that a government official’s conduct violates the Constitution, the violation is clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity despite some factual distinctions that are irrelevant under the governing constitutional rule. |
| 25-465 | Barton v. Securities and Exchange Commission | Whether 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5) and its authorization for the Securities and Exchange Commission to seek “equitable relief” allow the SEC and a district court to use that general equitable authority to order a receivership — seizing every company owned by a defendant that benefitted to the slightest degree from the proceeds of his allegedly illegal acts — and thereby deprive the defendant of the resources to defend himself in a parallel criminal trial. |
| 25-458 | Collins v. Bondi | (1) Whether the government may deprive petitioner of his Second Amendment right to bear arms based on minor, nonviolent offenses committed as a young adult; and (2) whether a person may raise an as-applied challenge to a law that imposes an overly broad prohibition on the possession of a firearm. |
| 25-453 | Bannon v. U.S. | (1) Whether “willfully” in 2 U.S.C. § 192 – which states that anyone who is “summoned … by the authority of either House of Congress” and “willfully makes default” on the subpoena has committed a crime – requires the government to prove the defendant knew his conduct was unlawful; and (2) whether the proper composition of a congressional committee bears on its “authority” to issue a subpoena for purposes of 2 U.S.C. § 192. |
| 25-439 | Tobien v. Nationwide General Insurance Company | Whether a defendant who raises the affirmative defense of improper venue in a non-patent case bears the burden of proving that venue is improper. |
| 25-437 | Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Benson | (1) Whether genuine disputes of material fact exist as to whether Michigan failed to make a “reasonable effort” to remove deceased registrants under the National Voter Registration Act; and (2) whether the appellate court erred by using TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez to determine Article III standing in a case involving the denial of public records. |
| 25-436 | Volkswagen AG v. Hernandez | Whether a state court violates due process by exercising specific personal jurisdiction over a product-liability claim against a foreign manufacturer based on the manufacturer’s sales of its products abroad to an independent American distributor, which then marketed and sold the products in the forum state. |
| 25-426 | White v. Plappert | (1) Whether a state-court decision is “contrary to” federal law where its reasoning and outcome contradict this Court’s materially indistinguishable precedents, but the state court correctly cites the governing legal standard in passing; (2) whether, when a state court’s stated reasoning reveals that its decision is contrary to or unreasonably applies federal law, federal habeas courts can deny relief by hypothesizing alternative justifications for the state court’s decision; and (3) whether, under 28 U.S.C. 2243, federal habeas courts may deny relief where the petitioner has established that his conviction or sentence is unconstitutional and that he is entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). |
| 25-421 | National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont | Whether a ban on the possession of AR-15-style rifles and firearm magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. |
| 25-417 | Nielsen v. Watanabe | Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred here in recognizing a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics cause of action. |
| 25-416 | Cangrejeros de Santurce v. Liga de Béisbol | (1) Whether the court discard the baseball antitrust exemption by overruling Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs, Toolson v. New York Yankees, and Flood v. Kuhn; and (2) whether the court — if it does not overrule Federal Baseball, Toolson, and Flood — should narrowly construe the baseball exemption as applicable only to the circumstances presented in those cases. |
| 25-412 | Williamson v. U.S. | (1) Whether a “search” occurs when the government takes a purposeful, investigative act directed toward an individual’s home and curtilage, regardless of whether the individual has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area; and (2) whether, even under Katz v. United States, long-term, continuous, and surreptitious surveillance of an individual’s home and curtilage constitutes a “search.” |
| 25-379 | Public Interest Legal Foundation v. Schmidt | (1) Whether the appellate court erred in using TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez to evaluate standing in this case, which involves the denial of public records; (2) whether TransUnion overruled this Court’s cases establishing the standing inquiry for public records cases; and (3) whether the appellate court erred by finding that the Foundation does not have standing to redress the denial of public records under the National Voter Registration Act. |
| 25-378 | Olsen v. Salter | Whether a police officer is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for the nondisclosure of material exculpatory evidence, absent a showing of bad faith, and was such a right clearly established in 2003 with respect to a police officer who was investigating a shooting, and who inadvertently did not disclose to the prosecutor a larger version of a mugshot photo of an individual whom the defendant already knew and believed to be the “real shooter”; and (2) whether a police officer is liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the fair trial right of a criminal defendant when a criminal court permits a witness to make an in-court identification of the defendant following the officer’s overly suggestive pretrial witness identification procedure, and was such a right clearly established in 2003 with respect to a police officer conducting a single-photo show-up where: the identifying victim already knew the defendant he was identifying, neither the prosecutor nor trial judge expressed any constitutional concern, defense counsel did not object at trial to the identification evidence, and a three-judge panel ruled on direct appeal that even if the defendant had objected, the witness’s in-court identification of the defendant still would have been admissible without violating Salter’s constitutional rights. |
| 25-368 | Taylor v. Singleton | Whether the First Amendment protects begging. |
| 25-362 | Griffiths v. Keith | (1) Whether a police officer must wait until an armed, fleeing suspect turns and points his gun at the officer before using deadly force where, as here, the suspect refuses to comply with an officer’s commands to drop his weapon, proceeds to flee with the gun in his hand, and could turn and fire upon the officer; and (2) whether the court of appeals violated existing Supreme Court precedent by merely citing the general rule in defining a clearly established right, and by failing to identify any case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment. |
| 25-361 | Asante v. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services | Whether a state’s Medicaid program violates 42 C.F.R. § 431.52(b)’s equal-payment requirement by denying supplemental payments to out-of-state hospitals, thereby paying in-state hospitals more than out-of-state hospitals that furnish the same services to the state’s Medicaid patients. |
| 25-356 | Mancuso v. New York | (1) Whether New York’s Penal Law § 265.03(3), § 265.02(1) and § 265.01-b(1), which prohibit the ownership of a firearm in the home or for purposes of self-defense by a person convicted of any crime is facially unconstitutional in derogation of the Second Amendment and contravenes this Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen ; and (2) whether the application of New York’s Penal Law § 265.03(3), § 265.02(1) and § 265.01-b(1) to Steven Mancuso prohibiting him from possessing a firearm in his home violates the Second Amendment and contravenes this Court’s decision in Bruen due to his conviction for a violation of the federal Clean Air Act, which is a non-violent felony under United States law. |
| 25-349 | Audi AG v. L.W. | Whether a state court violates due process by exercising specific personal jurisdiction over a product-liability claim against a foreign manufacturer based on the manufacturer’s sales of its products abroad to an independent American distributor, which then marketed and sold the products in the forum State. |
| 25-348 | AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Kennedy | Whether the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 implicates an interest of pharmaceutical manufacturers that is protected by the Due Process Clause. |
| 25-343 | CashCall v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | (1) Whether a claim for "legal" restitution in excess of net profits triggers the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial; and (2) whether a litigant may validly waive a constitutional right at a time when binding circuit precedent clearly forecloses any exercise of that right. |
| 25-325 | Fooks v. Maryland | (1) Whether Maryland Code, Public Safety Article, § 5-133(b)(2), which provides that “a person may not possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of a violation classified as a common law crime and received a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years,” violates the Second Amendment on its face, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi; and (2) whether § 5-133(b)(2) violates the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Fooks, in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and United States v. Rahimi. |
| 25-290 | Odeku v. Texas | Whether a complainant’s statements to a sexual assault nurse examiner are testimonial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. |
| 25-1 | Skinner v. Louisiana | Whether Louisiana courts erred in refusing to apply Wearry v. Cain to an individual's Brady v. Maryland claims. |
| 24-969 | Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Whether, in order to obtain judicial relief, a party challenging governmental action taken by an individual who remained in office against the president’s wishes due to an unconstitutional removal restriction must show that a hypothetical replacement officer would have taken a different action. |
| 23-6912 | Fields v. Plappert | Whether the requirement that a verdict be based only on the evidence presented in the courtroom at trial satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)’s “clearly established” requirement, and if so, whether a jury’s consideration of and reliance on extrinsic evidence as part of a jury experiment violates this rule. |
Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General (9)
This category consists of petitions that have already been considered at one or more conferences, after which the court asked the federal government for its views on what the court should do with the petition – often because a federal law or interest is involved. This process, during which the petitions effectively remain on hold, can take several months: after the court calls for the solicitor general's views (known as a "CVSG"), the litigants have the chance to meet with lawyers from the U.S. solicitor general's office to try to convince them that the government should support their side. After also consulting with other departments and agencies in the federal government that may have an interest in the case, the solicitor general then files a brief in which it recommends either that the court either grant or deny review. The federal government's recommendation normally carries significant, although not dispositive, weight with the justices.
| Docket | Case Page | Issue(s) |
|---|---|---|
| 25-183 | Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia | Whether Title IX provides employees of federally funded educational institutions a private right of action to sue for sex discrimination in employment. |
| 25-159 | Hoffmann v. WBI Energy Transmission | Whether in private condemnations under the Natural Gas Act, just compensation should be determined by reference to state law. |
| 25-119 | Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. NexPoint Advisors, L.P. | (1) Whether a bankruptcy court can act as a gatekeeper to screen noncolorable lawsuits against nondebtor bankruptcy participants; and (2) whether a bankruptcy court can to a limited degree exculpate nondebtor bankruptcy participants from liability for conduct arising from the bankruptcy process. |
| 25-113 | Renteria v. New Mexico Office of the Superintendent of Insurance | (1) Under Employment Division v. Smith, whether state laws must always be deemed “neutral” unless plaintiffs prove officials acted against them with subjective religious animus and discriminatory motive; (2) under Smith, whether courts determining a law’s “general applicability” must disregard the law’s preference for secular over religious organizations on the grounds that secular and religious organizations are inherently motivated by different purposes and thus incomparable, or alternatively, whether courts must consider the law’s preference for secular over religious organizations so long as their activities pose a similar risk to the government’s asserted interest in the law; (3) whether hostile statements of government actors against religious adherents are sufficient to establish a First Amendment free exercise violation, or whether states may try to justify their hostility by satisfying strict scrutiny; and (4) Whether the Affordable Care Act (ACA)'s exemption for individuals who participate in health care sharing ministries (HCSMs) preempts New Mexico’s determination that those individuals’ HCSMs may not operate in New Mexico until they forfeit their federal statuses as HCSMs under the ACA. |
| 24-1130 | Kingdom of Spain v. Blasket Renewable Investments LLC | (1) Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6) allows United States courts to assert jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign without determining whether the sovereign consented to arbitrate differences between itself and the plaintiff; and (2) whether, in suits to confirm foreign arbitral awards, forum non conveniens dismissal is categorically unavailable, unavailable in at least some suits, or depends on the facts of each case. |
| 24-1016 | RiseandShine Corporation v. PepsiCo | Whether trademark strength is a question of fact in a likelihood-of-confusion analysis under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. |
| 24-1015 | Does 1-2 v. Hochul | (1) Whether compliance with state laws directly contrary to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964’s requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs may serve as an undue hardship justifying an employer’s noncompliance with Title VII; and (2) whether a state law that requires employers to deny without any consideration all requests by employees for a religious accommodation, contrary to Title VII’s religious nondiscrimination provision, is preempted by Title VII and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. |
| 24-1001 | Cotter Corporation v. Mazzocchio | Whether federal nuclear safety regulations preempt state tort standards of care in public liability actions. |
| 22o161 | Nebraska v. Colorado | Whether, when one state breaches another's contract and there are "direct, immediate, grave and irreparable injur[ies] to [a state] and its citizens," the court should grant the harmed state leave to file a complaint in an original action. |