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
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.
24-203 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.
24-276 Crownholm v. Moore (1) What standard applies to determine whether an occupational-licensing law’s restriction on a person’s use, creation, and dissemination of information in drawings is a regulation of his speech or of his conduct that incidentally involves his speech; and (2) what level of constitutional scrutiny applies to speech regulated by an occupational-licensing law.
24-279 360 Virtual Drone Services LLC v. Ritter Whether, in an as-applied First Amendment challenge to an occupational-licensing law, the standard for determining whether the law regulates speech or regulates conduct is this court’s traditional conduct-versus-speech dichotomy.
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.
24-410 L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts Whether school officials may presume substantial disruption or a violation of the rights of others from a student’s silent, passive, and untargeted ideological speech simply because that speech relates to matters of personal identity, even when the speech responds to the school’s opposing views, actions, or policies.
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.
24-539 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.
24-5774 Barrett v. U.S. (1) Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j); and (2) whether “Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under Section 924(c)(3)(A), a question left open after” United States v. Taylor.

Petitions We’re Watching for the Next Conference

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
24-695 Cool v. Jackson Whether this court has clearly required state courts to reopen the mitigation evidence in every death-penalty remand, even if the error did not affect the defendant’s opportunity to submit mitigation evidence.
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.
24-587 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.
24-576 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.
24-517 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.
24-482 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.
24-440 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.

Featured Petitions

Docket Case Page Issue(s)
24-813 Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana (1) Whether a causal-nexus or contractual-direction test survives the 2011 amendment to the federal-officer removal statute, which provides federal jurisdiction over civil actions against “any person acting under [an] officer” of the United States “for or relating to any act under color of such office;" and (2) whether a federal contractor can remove to federal court when sued for oil-production activities undertaken to fulfill a federal oil-refinement contract.
24-809 Goldey v. Fields (1) Whether an implied cause of action exists for Eighth Amendment excessive-force claims; and (2) whether the court should reconsider the premise that the judiciary may imply causes of action for damages under the federal Constitution that Congress did not enact.
24-805 Maldonado-Magno v. Bondi Whether the U.S. courts of appeals should review de novo or for substantial evidence the agency's determination that a given set of facts do not show “persecution or well-founded fear of persecution on account of” a protected characteristic under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A).
24-803 Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission Whether — and if so, under what circumstances — the First Amendment permits the government to require ordinary citizens to register and pay a fee to communicate with their government representatives.
24-801 Stitt v. Fowler Whether the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires a state to alter its official certificate documenting a person’s sex at birth to represent that person’s current gender identity.
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.
24-795 Antonyuk v. James (1) Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning as applied to the states is 1791, rather than 1868; and (2) whether “the people” must convince government officials of their “good moral character” before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms.
24-786 Republican National Committee v. Genser (1) What legal standard determines whether a state court’s interpretation of state election law exceeds the bounds of ordinary judicial review and therefore violates the elections and electors clauses of the federal Constitution; and (2) whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court exceeded the bounds of ordinary judicial review and thereby usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for congressional elections and broad power to “direct” the “Manner” for appointing electors for president and vice president under those clauses, when it struck down a state statute directing that election officials “shall not” count an individual’s provisional ballot if they “timely received” a mail ballot cast by that person.
24-782 Jacobson v. Worth Whether Minnesota’s statute limiting permits for public carry of pistols to those 21 and older comports with the principles underlying the Second Amendment.
24-773 Wade v. University of Michigan Whether the Second and 14th Amendments allow a criminal ordinance that prohibits mere possession of firearms on an entire poorly-delineated university campus, except by permission of a single government official with unfettered discretion, which is granted only for “extraordinary circumstances.”
24-759 Wye Oak Technology v. Republic of Iraq (1) Whether, in a breach of contract case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s third clause, it is sufficient to prove a “direct effect” in the United States applying traditional causation principles, or instead courts must make an additional finding that the contract at issue established or necessarily contemplated the United States as a place of performance; and (2) whether the “act performed in the United States” giving rise to jurisdiction in an action under the statute’s second clause must be an “act” by the foreign sovereign, or instead the statute’s text contains no such limitation.
24-755 Slaybaugh v. Rutherford County, Tennessee Whether a common law privilege to access property categorically absolves the government’s duty of just compensation for property it physically destroys.
24-753 Coria v. Bondi Whether the Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed [specified] criminal offenses” but clarifies that this jurisdiction-stripping provision does not preclude review “of constitutional claims or questions of law,” bars judicial review of collateral facts that do not bear on the merits of a final order of removal itself.
24-728 Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta (1) Whether a party alleging that California's Proposition 12 — which enacts a pork sales ban to regulate the manner in which pigs are housed in states across the country — discriminates against interstate commerce, both directly and under Pike v. Bruce Church, states a claim; and (2) whether lower federal courts evaluating fractured opinions from this court consider all justices' opinions to determine the majority position on a legal issue, or instead are limited to consider only opinions concurring in the result.
24-724 The Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist (1) Whether a district court’s final judgment as to completely diverse parties must be vacated when an appellate court later determines that it erred by dismissing a non-diverse party at the time of removal; and (2) whether a plaintiff may defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to add factual allegations that state a colorable claim against a non-diverse party when the complaint at the time of removal did not state such a claim.
24-718 Warner v. Hillsborough County School Board Whether, under 28 U.S.C. § 1654, children must hire an attorney to pursue their claims in federal court, or instead their parents may litigate pro se on their behalf.
24-714 T.W. v. New York State Board of Law Examiners Whether a plaintiff who suffers ongoing harm caused by a state official’s prior unlawful conduct is subject to an “ongoing violation” of federal law and so able to seek an injunction under Ex parte Young, or that decision's ongoing-violation requirement instead demands that a plaintiff show that the state official’s continuing actions are independently unlawful.
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.
24-686 Young v. Swaney Whether a certificate of appealability may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) when the issue that the petitioner wishes to present on appeal has been resolved against him by binding circuit precedent but in his favor by another federal court of appeals.
24-685 McBrine v. U.S. (1) Whether plaintiffs who bring actions against the United States under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act of 2022 have the right to trial by jury; and (2) whether parties who have been denied a statutory right to trial by jury may categorically obtain mandamus relief.
24-684 Meadors v. Erie County Board of Elections Whether the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” doctrine requires plaintiffs in election law cases to predict and articulate specific plans for their own future electoral participation, or instead it is sufficient to show that the challenged law will continue to affect voters and candidates in future elections.
24-683 Energetic Tank v. U.S. Whether Feres v. United States should be extended to bar claims under statutes other than the Federal Tort Claims Act.
24-678 Wheeler v. U.S. Whether Congress violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause when it deprived servicemembers facing criminal prosecutions of the right to be tried by a panel of fellow servicemembers.
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.
24-631 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.
24-594 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.
24-577 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.
24-571 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.
24-532 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.
24-510 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.
24-351 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.