| 23-715 |
Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra |
Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received. |
| 23-741 |
Ahmed v. Securities and Exchange Commission |
Whether the cross-appeal rule, which prohibits the granting of a remedy in favor of an appellee absent the filing of a cross-appeal, is jurisdictional or otherwise mandatory, or instead admits of any exception, including, among other things, for remands or changes in substantive law. |
| 23-9 |
AstraZeneca UK, Ltd. v. Atchley |
(1) Whether the court should grant, vacate, and remand this case for further proceedings in light of its decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh; (2) whether plaintiffs plead proximate causation as required for direct liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act by alleging that defendants transacted with a foreign-government agency that was in turn infiltrated by the group that injured plaintiffs; and (3) whether a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization “plan[s]” or “authorize[s]” a specific attack—as required for ATA aiding-and-abetting liability—by providing general support or inspiration to a different group that carries out the attack. |
| 23-830 |
Bassett v. Arizona |
Whether the Eighth Amendment permits a juvenile to be sentenced to life without parole under a system that did not afford the sentencing court discretion to choose any other option. |
| 22-886 |
Blenheim Capital Holdings Ltd. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. |
Whether a foreign government’s procurement of goods for a military purpose, through a contract with a U.S. company, is commercial activity within the meaning of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. |
| 23-248 |
Broadnax v. Texas |
Whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision that James Broadnax failed to establish a prima facie equal protection claim conflicts with this court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky. |
| 23-831 |
Caswell v. Colorado |
(1) Whether a prior misdemeanor conviction that elevates a subsequent offense from a misdemeanor to a felony is an element of the subsequent offense that must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt under Apprendi v. New Jersey; and (2) whether this court should overrule Almendarez-Torres v. United States as inconsistent with the Sixth Amendment as understood in Apprendi and its progeny. |
| 23-686 |
Cela v. Garland |
Whether noncitizens who were “granted asylum,” but whose asylum was later terminated, are eligible for adjustment to lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). |
| 23-753 |
City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency |
Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform. |
| 23-916 |
Clement v. Garland |
Whether, when a petitioner challenges a final order of removal by asserting his U.S. citizenship in a timely petition for review, a court of appeals may reject the challenge and affirm the removal order on the ground that the petitioner waived or forfeited the citizenship claim in immigration proceedings. |
| 23-743 |
Consumers’ Research v. Federal Communications Commission |
(1) Whether 47 U.S.C. § 254 violates the nondelegation doctrine by imposing no limit on the Federal Communications Commission’s power to raise revenue for the Universal Service Fund; and (2) whether the FCC violated the private nondelegation doctrine by transferring its revenue-raising power to a private company run by industry interest groups. |
| 23-853 |
Credit Bureau Center, LLC v. Federal Trade Commission |
Whether Section 19 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, which prohibits the award of “any exemplary or punitive damages,” empowers the FTC to seek and a court to award disgorgement of a business’s gross receipts as punishment for violating the act, and therefore impose the same remedy, for the same reasons, and for the same victims under Section 19 as was done under Section 13(b) of the act. |
| 23-825 |
Delligatti v. U.S. |
Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. |
| 22-957 |
Dermody v. Massachusetts Executive Office of Health and Human Services |
Whether an annuity that satisfies the condition in 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(c)(2)(B)(i) determining the Medicaid eligibility of a married institutionalized person must name the state as the first remainder beneficiary in order to avoid Section 1396p(c)(1)’s transfer penalty. |
| 23-722 |
Diaz v. Polanco |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit improperly denied qualified immunity to prison officials in these cases by defining the relevant law at a high level of generality and failing to identify any precedent recognizing a constitutional violation on similar facts. |
| 23-217 |
E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera |
Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. |
| 23-323 |
Gamboa v. Lumpkin |
Whether a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion claiming that habeas counsel’s abandonment prevented the consideration of a petitioner’s claims should always be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby. |
| 23-167 |
Hamm v. Smith |
(1) Whether Hall v. Florida and Moore v. Texas mandate that courts deem the standard of “significantly subaverage intellectual functioning” for determining intellectual disability in Atkins v. Virginia satisfied when an offender’s lowest IQ score, decreased by one standard error of measurement, is 70 or below; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hall and Moore, or at least clarify that they permit courts to consider multiple IQ scores and the probability that an offender’s IQ does not fall at the bottom of the lowest IQ score’s error range. |
| 23-704 |
Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals v. Federal Trade Commission |
(1) Whether a fundamental change in decisional law can independently support relief from a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6); and (2) whether the Federal Trade Commission can obtain compensatory equitable remedies as sanctions for civil contempt of a permanent injunction under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act when those remedies are not directly available under Section 13(b). |
| 23-492 |
Jane Doe 1 v. Kentucky ex rel. Coleman, Attorney General |
(1) Whether, under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 311.372(2), which bans medical treatments “for the purpose of attempting to alter the appearance of, or to validate a minor’s perception of, the minor’s sex, if that appearance or perception is inconsistent with the minor’s sex,” should be subjected to heightened scrutiny because it burdens parents’ right to direct the medical treatment of their children; (2) whether, under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, § 311.372(2) should be subjected to heightened scrutiny because it classifies on the basis of sex and transgender status; and (3) whether petitioners are likely to show that § 311.372(2) does not satisfy heightened scrutiny. |
| 23-601 |
John and Jane Parents 1 v. Montgomery County Board of Education |
(1) Whether, when a public school, by policy, expressly targets parents to deceive them about how the school will treat their minor children, parents have standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief in anticipation of the school applying its policy against them; and (2) whether, assuming the parents have standing, a school policy that requires school employees to hide from parents that their child is transitioning gender at school if, in the child’s or the school’s estimation, the parents will not be “supportive” enough of the transition, violates their fundamental parental rights. |
| 23-720 |
Khadr v. U.S. |
Whether a plea agreement that includes a general appellate waiver forecloses a direct appeal when a defendant has pled guilty to conduct that was not criminal. |
| 23-668 |
King v. Emmons |
(1) Whether the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision was based on “an unreasonable determination” of the facts under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); and (2) whether the Georgia Supreme Court “unreasonably applied” this court’s decision in Batson v. Kentucky under Section 2254(d)(1). |
| 23-578 |
Kinzy v. U.S. |
Whether a district court can insulate from vacatur a sentence based on an erroneously enhanced Sentencing Guidelines range simply by stating, without explanation, that it would have imposed the same sentence absent the error, or whether, to avoid resentencing, the district court must comply with this court’s clear command in Gall v. United States and Rita v. United States to sufficiently explain why the sentence imposed is warranted even if the Sentencing Guidelines range was wrong. |
| 23-466 |
L. W. v. Skrmetti |
(1) Whether Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1, which categorically bans gender-affirming healthcare for transgender adolescents, triggers heightened scrutiny and likely violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause; and (2) whether Senate Bill 1 likely violates the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the medical care of their children guaranteed by the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. |
| 23-828 |
Moylan v. Guerrero |
Whether the Supreme Court of Guam’s advisory opinion that a Guam abortion law passed in 1990 had been impliedly repealed constitutes a permissible exercise of the “judicial authority” that Congress has vested in that court under 48 U.S.C. §1424(a)(1). |
| 23-687 |
MRP Properties Company, LLC v. U.S. |
Whether, when analyzing whether an entity is a facility “operator” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, courts should consider pollution-producing activities that the entity managed, directed, or conducted, or should instead limit this analysis to waste-disposal and regulatory-compliance activities. |
| 23-402 |
Oklahoma v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 violates the private non-delegation doctrine; and (2) whether the act violates the anti-commandeering doctrine by coercing states into funding a federal regulatory program. |
| 23-649 |
Price v. Montgomery County, Kentucky |
(1) Whether absolute immunity is unavailable under 42 U.S.C § 1983 where a prosecutor knowingly destroys exculpatory evidence; and (2) whether absolute immunity is unavailable under Section 1983 where a prosecutor defies a court order that compels specific action, leaving no room for the exercise of discretion. |
| 23-5618 |
Sandoval v. Texas |
(1) How courts should determine when jury empanelment begins for a particular defendant’s case, triggering the due process right to be present, given that jury selection is one of the most critical phases of a criminal trial; and (2) whether the state court erred when it held, without analysis of the underlying facts, that the trial court did not violate Gustavo Sandoval’s due process rights when it excluded him and his counsel from proceedings in which members of the jury panel who were called for his trial — and who knew the case that they were summoned for — sought discretionary excusals from the court. |
| 23-645 |
Uber Technologies v. Gregg |
Whether the Federal Arbitration Act requires the complete severance of arbitrable individual claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act from non-individual claims, with the individual claims committed to a separate proceeding. |
| 23-824 |
U.S. v. Miller |
Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy. |
| 23-477 |
U.S. v. Skrmetti |
Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. |
