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)
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.
23-6573 Andrew v. White (1) Whether clearly established federal law as determined by this court forbids the prosecution’s use of a woman’s plainly irrelevant sexual history, gender presentation, and role as a mother and wife to assess guilt and punishment; and (2) whether this court should summarily reverse in light of cumulative effect of the errors in this case at guilt and sentencing, including the introduction of a custodial statement made without the warnings Miranda v. Arizona requires.
24-57 Coalition Life v. City of Carbondale, Illinois Whether the court should overrule Hill v. Colorado.
24-73 Burt v. Gordon Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit improperly denied qualified immunity to prison officials based on their response to the unprecedented COVID-19 global pandemic by defining the relevant law at too high level of generality, and identifying no precedent recognizing a constitutional right under similar circumstances that would have put reasonable officials on notice that their conduct may violate the Constitution given the novel challenge of the pandemic.
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.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
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.
24-489 Gulf Coast Racing, LLC v. Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (1) Whether Congress can empower a purportedly private nonprofit entity to regulate an entire industry nationwide through rulemaking, adjudication and enforcement powers, and therefore to exercise significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States, without proper appointments under the appointments clause of the Constitution; and (2) whether statutorily empowering a private nonprofit corporation to regulate an entire industry nationwide through rulemaking, adjudication and enforcement violates the private nondelegation doctrine.
24-475 Braidwood Management v. Becerra Whether the Affordable Care Act violates the nondelegation doctrine by empowering agencies to unilaterally decree the preventive care that private health insurers must cover, while failing to provide an “intelligible principle” to guide the discretion of those agencies.
24-472 National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association v. Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Whether the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act grants legislative power to a private corporation, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, in violation of Article I, section I, clause I of the Constitution (the “private nondelegation doctrine”).
24-465 Texas v. Black Whether Congress has unconstitutionally delegated legislative authority to a private entity in the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020.
24-433 Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority v. National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association Whether the enforcement provisions of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 are facially unconstitutional under the private nondelegation doctrine.
24-429 Federal Trade Commission v. National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association Whether the enforcement provisions of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020 — which allow the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority, a private entity, to assist the Federal Trade Commission in enforcing the statute—violate the private nondelegation doctrine on their face.
24-421 Davis v. Smith Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit exceeded its powers under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act in concluding that “every fairminded jurist would agree” that the Ohio courts violated the Constitution in refusing to bar testimony from a victim of an attempted murder identifying her attacker.
24-420 Walmsley v. Federal Trade Commission (1) Whether the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act unlawfully delegates enforcement power to the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority; and (2) whether the act unlawfully delegates rulemaking power to the authority.
24-390 Patterson v. Baz (1) Whether parties to a case under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction may waive the right to seek a return elsewhere by agreeing to resolve child-custody disputes exclusively in the United States; and (2) whether parties to a case under the Hague Convention should be held to a decision to waive, forego, or stipulate away rights, including to argue that the habitual residence of a child is outside of the United States, in the same way as any other party would in an ordinary civil action brought in U.S. court.
24-365 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Ramsey Whether the Federal Arbitration Act preempts California’s rule established in McGill v. Citibank.
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.
24-316 Becerra v. Braidwood Management Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.
24-302 Mendez v. U.S. (1) Whether the government may conduct a warrantless search of the electronic contents of a person’s cell phone at the border; and (2) whether the government may conduct a suspicionless search of the electronic contents of a person’s cell phone at the border.
24-46 Nivar Santana v. Garland What standard of proof applies when a noncitizen previously admitted to the United States seeks to obtain relief from removal by having her status adjusted to that of a lawful permanent resident.
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.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
24-538 Chisesi v. Hunady (1) Whether, on a defendant’s interlocutory appeal asserting qualified immunity, a court of appeals can decide whether any genuine factual disputes exist; and (2) whether qualified immunity should be abrogated or restricted to its common-law origins.
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.
24-513 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.
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.
24-450 Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency Whether the Clean Air Act permits remand to the Environmental Protection Agency to supplement the administrative record with new information and justifications after a rule is promulgated.
24-449 Petersen v. Doe Whether Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which preserves the traditional practice of excluding biological males from girls’ and women’s sports teams and competitions, violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
24-441 A.M.B. v. McKnight Whether a state’s categorical disqualification of unmarried people from adopting the children of their partners violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
24-437 Oklahoma v. Department of Health and Human Services (1) Whether a federal agency, through regulations, can impose upon states a funding condition that satisfies the Constitution's spending clause when the underlying statute does not contain or is ambiguous as to that condition; and (2) whether the Weldon Amendment prohibits the federal government from requiring a state's health department to provide abortion referrals.
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.
24-417 National Association of Realtors v. U.S. Whether the United States enjoys greater rights than a private party to withdraw from a contract based solely on its determination that it no longer wishes to be bound by that contract.
24-416 Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.
24-413 Department of Education v. Career Colleges and Schools of Texas (1) 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; and (2) whether the 5th Circuit erred in ordering the district court to enter preliminary relief on a universal basis.
24-396 St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.
24-394 Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires.
24-373 Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore Whether Maryland’s handgun qualification license requirement violates the Second Amendment.
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.
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.
24-333 The Walt Disney Co. v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal Whether a state tax law that on its face treats royalty income derived from corporate affiliates less favorably if the affiliates do not subject themselves to the state’s jurisdiction facially discriminates against interstate and foreign commerce.
24-332 IBM Corp. & Combined Affiliates v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal Whether a state may impose a “heads I win, tails you lose” regime that taxes either side of an interstate or foreign transaction, depending on which side has a nexus to the state, even though such a regime would inherently disadvantage interstate and foreign commerce if it were replicated by every jurisdiction.
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.
24-319 Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Harris (1) Whether a law is “neutral” and “generally applicable” under Employment Division v. Smith where it exempts certain religious organizations — but not others — based on narrow and subjective religious criteria unrelated to the law’s purpose, or instead such laws are subject to strict scrutiny; and (2) whether, if the First Amendment permits such discrimination among religious organizations under the rule announced in Smith, that decision should be overruled.
24-311 Protect Our Parks v. Buttigieg (1) Whether the Obama Presidential Center project, which includes four structures constructed over 19.3 acres of Frederick Law Olmsted’s Jackson Park, located next to Lake Michigan, is a major federal action under the federal environmental laws because the roadwork required due to the destruction and alteration of its internal roadwork, necessitated by that construction, is federally funded; (2) whether a federal court can properly defer to a federal agency’s narrow, unsupported and highly deferential definition of a major project and thus escape review under this court’s recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and its well-established decision in Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe; (3) whether the federal reviews of the center relied upon below employed illegal segmentation to allow large portions of the undertaking to escape federal review under the federal environmental laws; (4) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit erred in deferring to the federal agencies that either ignored or belittled the destruction of hundreds of trees, migratory bird habitats, and other key environmental effects in declining to require an environmental impact statement; (5) whether the 7th Circuit erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the plaintiffs’ only motion for leave to amend pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which was filed before any discovery began, before any schedule was set, and before any trial date was set; and (6) whether the 7th Circuit’s refusal to reverse the dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) of state law claims violated both Illinois law and this court’s precedents dealing with the duty of loyalty, duty of care, and nondelegation and public-trust doctrines.
24-300 Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project v. Jeffries Whether the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires an agency to produce its “whole record” for judicial review, permits an agency to categorically and unilaterally exclude from the administrative record materials that the agency deems deliberative.
24-297 Mahmoud v. Taylor Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.
24-249 A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.
24-220 Jacobsen v. Montana Democratic Party (1) What standard applies, when the Supreme Court reviews a state court’s decision invalidating state legislation under the Constitution's elections clause, to whether that decision exceeds the bounds of ordinary judicial review; and (2) whether the Montana Supreme Court’s split decision below exceeded the bounds of ordinary judicial review by invalidating under the Montana Constitution two Montana election integrity provisions — one setting the voter-registration deadline at noon the day before election day, and another requiring the secretary of state to promulgate regulations banning paid absentee ballot collection.
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.
23-969 Walen v. Burgum (1) Whether the district court erred by applying the incorrect legal standard when deciding that the North Dakota legislature had good reasons and a strong basis to believe two majority-Native-American subdistricts were required by the Voting Rights Act; (2) whether the district court erred by improperly weighing the evidence and granting inferences in favor of the moving party at summary judgment instead of setting the case for trial; and (3) whether the district court erred when it found that the legislature’s attempted compliance with Section 2 of the VRA can justify racial sorting of voters into districts. CVSG: 12/10/2024
23-952 Shell PLC v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii (1) Whether claims seeking damages for the effects of interstate and international emissions on the global climate are beyond the limits of state law and thus preempted under the federal Constitution; and (2) whether the Clean Air Act preempts state-law claims predicated on damaging interstate emissions. CVSG: 12/10/2024
23-947 Sunoco LP v. City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii Whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking redress for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate. CVSG: 12/10/2024
23-914 Zilka v. City of Philadelphia Tax Review Board Whether the commerce clause requires states to consider a taxpayer’s burden in light of the state tax scheme as a whole when crediting a taxpayer’s out-of-state tax liability, or permits states to credit out-of-state state and local tax liabilities as discrete tax burdens. CVSG: 12/9/2024
22O160 Utah v. U.S. Whether the federal policy embodied in 43 U.S.C. § 1701(a)(1) of perpetual federal retention of unappropriated public lands in Utah is unconstitutional.
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

Calls for the Views of the Solicitor General

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
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).
23-1213 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.