Supreme Court Petitions

Featured Petitions (25)

Docket	Case Page	Issue(s)
24-1287	Learning Resources v. Trump	Whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes the president to impose tariffs.
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.
24-1261	Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Athletic Association	(1) Whether Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe compels a finding of government speech where two private Christian schools sought to engage in communal prayer over a loudspeaker before a football game organized by a state athletic association that otherwise permitted a wide array of private speech over the loudspeaker, and should therefore be overruled in light of this court’s later holdings; and (2) whether the endorsement factor of the government-speech doctrine revives the “endorsement test offshoot” of Lemon v. Kurtzman that “this Court long ago abandoned,” by providing a special veto for a private party’s religious speech on any government owned platform.
24-1145	Live Nation Entm't v. Heckman	(1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act protects all arbitration agreements or only a subset of traditional, bilateral arbitration agreements that the act’s drafters specifically envisioned; and (2) whether the FAA preempts California’s severability doctrine because it specifically targets and disproportionately invalidates arbitration agreements.
24-1107	Peoples v. Cook County, Illinois	Whether the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution provides the sort of explicit textual source of constitutional protection for overdetention such that the Eighth Amendment, not substantive due process, must be the exclusive guide for analyzing claims of unconstitutional overdetention.
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.
24-1095	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.
24-1093	Mumford v. Iowa	Whether a dog sniff of the interior of a lawfully stopped vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution absent consent to the sniff or probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains illegal drugs.
24-1092	Mungo Homes, LLC v. Huskins	Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred in applying a severability rule that disfavors arbitration and by creating a state-specific public policy defense to arbitration that conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act, such that enforcement of arbitration agreements in the state now turns on whether enforcement is sought in state or federal court.
24-1084	Hohn v. U.S.	Whether a prosecutor’s intentional, unjustified intrusion into a defendant’s attorney-client communications violates the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution without a showing of discrete, trial-specific prejudice.
24-1078	Beck v. U.S.	(1) Whether Feres v. United States’s bar against a servicemember’s ability to bring tort claims “incident to service” is only triggered when the injury was directly caused by the servicemember’s military duties or orders; and (2) whether the court should limit or overrule Feres because its limitation on servicemembers has no basis in the Federal Tort Claims Act's text and is unworkable.
24-1073	Maxwell v. U.S.	Whether, under Santobello v. New York and common principles of contract interpretation, promise on behalf of the “United States” or the “Government” that is made by a U.S. Attorney in one district binds federal prosecutors in other districts.
24-1063	Hunter v. U.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.
24-1061	Project Veritas v. Vasquez	(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred by holding that Oregon’s prohibition of unannounced recordings – which expressly exempts recordings of police activity and discussions during certain felonies – is content-neutral and thus subject only to intermediate scrutiny; and (2) whether, even if Oregon’s law is content-neutral, it fails intermediate scrutiny because it restricts unannounced audio recording in wholly public settings where privacy interests are minimal or nonexistent.
24-1050	Estate of Te’Juan Johnson v. Rakes	(1) Whether a theory of liability under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution based on “state-created danger” is incompatible with the purpose of the due process clause of that Amendment “to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protect[s] them from each other"; (2) whether, if a theory of liability under the 14th Amendment based on “state-created danger” exists consistent with the purpose of the due process clause, a police officer who misrepresents to an individual that a threatening person will be confined thereby assumes an affirmative constitutional duty to protect that individual from harm; and (3) whether a police officer who misrepresents to an individual that a threatening person will be confined is entitled to qualified immunity in the absence of clearly established law that he thereby assumed an affirmative obligation under the due process clause to protect that individual from harm.
24-1020	Uber Technologies v. Drammeh	Whether, under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, a federal court must apply existing state law or can instead predict changes in state law.
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.
24-994	National Basketball Association v. Salazar	(1) Whether a consumer claiming that he was harmed by disclosure of his personal information must plead that his information was revealed to the public to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, or instead the consumer need only plead that his information was disclosed to any third party without his consent; and (2) whether the Video Privacy Protection Act bars a business from disclosing information about consumers who do not subscribe to its audiovisual goods or services.
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.
24-948	Guerrero v. Redd	Whether, under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., a court of appeals’ decision should be vacated because the appeal became moot by happenstance while a petition for rehearing was pending, or instead can be left in place because further review is discretionary.
24-935	Flower Foods v. Brock	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.
24-796	Missouri v. U.S.	(1) Whether federal courts can second-guess a state"s "reason" for exercising 10th Amendment authority; (2) whether the federal Constitution prohibits states from exercising 10th Amendment authority when motivated by a concern that a federal statute is unconstitutional; and (3) whether a state official is a proper defendant under Ex parte Young simply because the official is regulated by a statute, or instead the official also needs to possess authority to enforce the challenged law.
24-594	Seale v. U.S.	Whether the certificate of appealability requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) bars a court of appeals from exercising jurisdiction over a person's appeal from a district court's refusal to conduct a full resentencing after one of their convictions was vacated on constitutional grounds.
24-532	Federal Republic of Nigeria v. Zhongshan Fucheng Industrial Investment Co.	(1) Whether, for interpreting the intentions of treaty parties regarding a word like "person," extra-textual information such as historical context and contemporary domestic law is a material input in parallel with the textual analysis; and (2) whether the New York Convention applies for arbitration agreements governing a dispute with a sovereign nation arising out of its role as a sovereign.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General (10)

Docket	Case Page	Issue(s)
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.
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.
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.
24-983	Havana Docks Corporation v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.	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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
24-699	Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Corporación Cimex, S.A.	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.
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).