Breaking News

Petitions We’re Watching

You can see all paid petitions we’re following below, organized by petitions relisted for the next conference, those scheduled for initial consideration at the next conference, other featured petitions, and finally, petitions in which the court has called for the views of the solicitor general.

View this list sorted by case name.

Petitions Relisted for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
22O158 Alabama v. California Whether the Supreme Court should enjoin states from seeking to impose liability or obtain equitable relief premised on either emissions by or in other states, or the promotion, use and/or sale of traditional energy products in or to those other states. CVSG: 12/10/2024
23-1189 Turco v. City of Englewood, New Jersey (1) Whether the City of Englewood’s speech-free buffer zones, including zones outside an abortion clinic, violate the First Amendment; and (2) whether the court should overrule Hill v. Colorado.
23-1281 Carter v. U.S. (1) Whether Feres v. United States should be limited not to bar tort claims brought by service members alleging medical malpractice who were under no military orders, not engaged in any military mission, and whose military status was retroactively altered from inactive to active duty post medical malpractice; and (2) whether the Feres doctrine conflicts with the plain language of the Federal Tort Claims Act and should thus be clarified, limited, or overruled.
24-23 Rimlawi v. U.S. (1) Whether the court of appeals erred in applying the guilt-based approach, rather than the error-based approach, to assess the harmlessness of the confrontation clause error; and (2) whether, under Apprendi v. New Jersey, the facts underlying a restitution award must be proved to, and found by, a jury beyond a reasonable doubt (and, in federal cases, charged in a grand jury indictment).
24-25 Shah v. U.S. Whether the Sixth Amendment reserves to juries the determination of any fact underlying a criminal restitution order.
24-57 Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois Whether the court should overrule Hill v. Colorado.
24-131 Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island (1) Whether a retrospective and confiscatory ban on the possession of ammunition-feeding devices that are in common use 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 of the Fifth Amendment.
24-152 Pina v. Estate of Jacob Dominguez Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred, so as to warrant summary reversal, by refusing qualified immunity without identifying any precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation based on similar facts and, indeed, overriding its own cases holding an officer would not violate the Constitution under the circumstances the jury found.
24-203 Snope v. Brown Whether the Constitution permits the state of Maryland to ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the most popular rifle in America.
24-227 Woodward v. California Whether the Supreme Court of California’s narrow test for an “acquittal,” limited only to circumstances where the record clearly shows that the judge correctly applied the substantial-evidence standard, conflicts with this court’s precedent under the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause.
24-291 Apache Stronghold v. U.S. Whether the government “substantially burdens” religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or must satisfy heightened scrutiny under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, when it singles out a sacred site for complete physical destruction, ending specific religious rituals forever.
24-330 Franklin v. New York (1) Whether the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause applies to out-of-court statements admitted as evidence against criminal defendants if, and only if, the statements were created for the primary purpose of serving as trial testimony; and (2) whether a post-arrest report prepared about a criminal defendant by an agent of the state for use in a criminal proceeding can be admitted as evidence against the defendant at trial, without providing a right to cross-examine the report’s author.
24-361 Speech First v. Whitten Whether university bias-response teams — official entities that solicit anonymous reports of bias, track them, investigate them, ask to meet with the perpetrators, and threaten to refer students for formal discipline — objectively chill students’ speech under the First Amendment.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
24-530 Bethesda University v. Cho Whether the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine bars courts from adjudicating the religious qualifications of the leaders of a religious institution.
24-513 Carter v. Stewart (1) Whether a prospective juror who alleges they were struck as the result of a policy, custom or usage of racial discrimination have a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and (2) if so, whether such claims must be adjudicated in the same manner as other Section 1983 lawsuits, including the submission of genuine issues of material fact to a jury.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
24-670 Bowers Development, LLC v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency (1) Whether the public use clause of the Fifth Amendment requires something more than minimal rational-basis review when the government takes land from one private owner to give it to a specifically identified private owner outside the context of a comprehensive economic-redevelopment plan; and (2) whether Kelo v. City of New London should be overruled.
24-669 Castaneda-Martinez v. Garland Whether issues resolved sua sponte by the Board of Immigration Appeals are exhausted under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) for purposes of judicial review.
24-645 Juliana v. U.S. (1) Whether, when plaintiffs have established their ongoing injuries are traceable to defendants’ policies and practices, Article III of the Constitution requires a particularized factual determination of whether a federal agency or official will redress plaintiffs’ injuries following a favorable declaratory judgment that resolves the constitutional controversy; and (2) whether exceptions exist to the three demanding conditions for mandamus articulated in Cheney v. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia.
24-642 Jeffery v. City of New York (1) Whether the constitutionality of the largest mass curfew in American history can be determined at the pleading stage, in the absence of record evidence, based solely upon the government’s declaration of an emergency; and (2) whether the factual predicate required to scrutinize an abridgment of fundamental rights can be exclusively supplied by judicially noticing “facts” contained in news and media coverage.
24-631 Hamso v. M.H. (1) Whether a policy declining coverage for sex-reassignment surgeries violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; and (2) whether clearly established law as of July 2022 held that a policy declining coverage for sex-reassignment surgeries violates the equal protection clause.
24-628 BNP Paribas SA v. Kashef Whether the courts of appeals have discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) to grant interlocutory review solely because a district court’s class-certification order is manifestly erroneous.
24-626 F.W. Webb Company v. Su Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit's judicially created “relational analysis” test can be used to decide the administrative exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime rules, in contravention of the secretary of labor’s regulations on the exemption.
24-621 National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission 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.
24-601 The Doe Run Resources Corporation v. Reid (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in denying dismissal based on international comity, when allowing a U.S. court to dictate Peruvian environmental standards is a grave affront to Peruvian sovereignty, and allowing such a claim would threaten to open the doors of U.S. courts to foreign tort claims lacking any meaningful nexus to the United States; and (2) whether the 8th Circuit erred in holding that the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement's language (found in many similar trade agreements) affirmatively requires U.S. courts to adjudicate foreign environmental tort claims.
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.
24-587 Scandinavian Airlines System v. Hardy Whether the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment authorizes a federal court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a foreign corporation in a personal injury action arising from an alleged incident and conduct that occurred wholly outside the United States.
24-577 Perez v. U.S. Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits the warrantless search of a backpack, piece of luggage, or other bag carried by an individual at the time of his arrest once police have secured the bag and eliminated any possibility of reaching a weapon or evidence inside it.
24-576 Nutramax Laboratories v. Lytle Whether, when a plaintiff seeking to certify a class relies on an expert to establish that classwide issues predominate, the expert testimony must satisfy the requirements for admissibility.
24-571 Young v. U.S. (1) Whether, under Honeycutt v. United States, a defendant can be ordered to forfeit property that was intended for and ultimately acquired by her co-conspirator, merely because the property temporarily passed through the defendant’s possession on its way to her co-conspirator; and (2) whether a defendant who is convicted under the Anti-Kickback Statute can be ordered to forfeit proceeds obtained from private health insurers, when such proceeds are not obtained in violation of the statute.
24-557 Villarreal v. Texas 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.
24-549 Grant v. Zorn (1) Whether the False Claims Act’s statutory civil penalty must be limited to a single-digit multiplier of the actual damages under the Eighth Amendment, in a non-intervened qui tam action; and (2) whether the Act's prohibition on presenting “false or fraudulent” claims to the government for payment provides two distinct manners of establishing liability, such that a finding of fraudulent claim submissions obviates a finding of falsity.
24-539 Chiles v. Salazar 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.
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.
24-524 Lighting Defense Group v. SnapRays Whether a defendant subjects itself to personal jurisdiction anywhere a plaintiff operates simply because the defendant knows its out-of-forum conduct “would necessarily affect marketing, sales, and other activities” within the forum, even though the defendant has no contacts with the plaintiff or the forum whatsoever.
24-517 Shockley v. Vandergriff Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in denying petitioner’s application, over dissent, to appeal the denial of his Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
24-512 Korban v. Watson Memorial Spiritual Temple of Christ Whether a prior federal judgment precludes state-law claims in a subsequent state- or federal-court action that arise from a common core of facts and that could have been, but were not, raised in the prior federal action.
24-510 Abbey v. U.S. Whether petitioners’ negligence claims “aris[e] out of ... misrepresentation,” and thus are barred by Section 2680(h) of the Federal Tort Claims Act, even though petitioners did not personally rely on an alleged misrepresentation.
24-504 Hoskins v. Withers (1) Whether qualified immunity shields government officials from liability even in cases where they retaliate against a person for exercising a clearly established constitutional right; and (2) whether, even assuming a plaintiff must show that retaliatory conduct is clearly unlawful, qualified immunity should have been denied because the retaliatory conduct here was clearly unlawful.
24-495 Konan v. U.S. Postal Service (1) Whether federal employees can be liable under the Ku Klux Klan Act; and (2) whether or under what circumstances the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine — which holds that employees of the same entity cannot be liable for conspiracy — applies to the act.
24-482 Ellingburg v. U.S. Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution's ex post facto clause.
24-474 Food and Drug Administration v. SWT Global Supply Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious.
24-440 Berk v. Choy 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.
24-427 Hittle v. City of Stockton, California (1) Whether this court should overrule McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green; and (2) whether step three of the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework requires a plaintiff to disprove the employer’s proffered reason for the adverse employment action, when the text of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Bostock v. Clayton County provide that an action may have more than one but-for cause or motivating factor.
24-351 U.S. Postal Service v. Konan 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.

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
24-350 Port of Tacoma v. Puget Soundkeeper Alliance Whether Section 505 of the Clean Water Act authorizes citizens to invoke the federal courts to enforce conditions of state-issued pollutant-discharge permits adopted under state law that mandate a greater scope of coverage than required by the act.
24-345 FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act creates an implied private right of action.
24-277 Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran Whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s terrorism exception extends jurisdiction to claims arising from a foreign state’s material support for a terrorist attack that injures or disables, but does not kill, its victims.
24-181 Sony Music Entm't v. Cox Communications Whether the profit requirement of vicarious copyright infringement permits liability when the defendant expects commercial gain from the enterprise in which infringement occurs, or instead permits liability only when the defendant expects commercial gain from the act of infringement itself.
24-171 Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entm't (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).
23-1360 Fiehler v. Mecklenburg Whether a court has the power to disregard evidence of the location of a water boundary from a federal survey based on subsequent evidence of the body of water's location.
23-1213 Mulready v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (1) Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act preempts state laws that regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) by preventing them from cutting off rural patients’ access, steering patients to PBM-favored pharmacies, excluding pharmacies willing to accept their terms from preferred networks, and overriding state discipline of pharmacists; and (2) whether Medicare Part D preempts state laws that limit the conditions PBMs may place on pharmacies’ participation in their preferred networks.
23-1209 M & K Employee Solutions, LLC v. Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund Whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s instruction to compute withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” requires a multiemployer pension plan to base the computation on the actuarial assumptions to which its actuary subscribed at the end of the year, or allows the plan to use different actuarial assumptions that were adopted after the end of the year.
23-1197 Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety 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.