U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will decide (1) when a generic drug manufacturer excludes a patented use from its label, whether it still be liable for inducing infringement if it calls its product a “generic version” of the brand-name drug and cites publicly available information about the brand-name drug's sales; and (2) whether a patent infringement complaint can survive dismissal if it does not allege that the defendant made any statement specifically instructing or encouraging the patented use.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Trump administration lawfully ended the Temporary Protected Status program for Syrian nationals.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Alien Tort Statute or the Torture Victim Protection Act allows a judicially-implied private right of action for aiding and abetting.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, to remove a lawful permanent resident who committed an offense listed in Section 1182(a)(2) and was subsequently paroled into the United States, the government must prove that it possessed clear and convincing evidence of the offense at the time of the lawful permanent resident’s last reentry into the United States.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Communications Act of 1934 provisions that govern the Federal Communications Commission’s assessment and enforcement of monetary forfeitures are consistent with the Seventh Amendment and Article III.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prevents parties who lose in state courts from challenging injuries caused by state-court judgments, can be triggered by a state-court decision that remains subject to further review in state court.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Executive Order No. 14,160 issued by President Donald, which denies U.S. birthright citizenship to children born in the United States solely because their parents are in the country unlawfully or on temporary visas, is consistent with the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a).

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably decided—under the standards set by federal habeas law—that Terry Pitchford gave up his right to argue that the prosecutor’s explanations for striking four Black jurors were false or racially biased?

A case in which the Court will decide 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.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel can be invoked to bar a plaintiff who fails to disclose a civil claim in bankruptcy filings from pursuing that claim simply because there is a potential motive for nondisclosure, regardless of whether there is evidence that the plaintiff in fact acted in bad faith.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a noncitizen who is stopped on the Mexican side of the U.S.-Mexico border “arrives in the United States” within the meaning of Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., which provides that a noncitizen who “arrives in the United States” may apply for asylum and must be inspected by an immigration officer.

A case in which the Court held that 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c) does not preempt state negligent-hiring lawsuits against transportation brokers, because those claims fall within the law's built-in safety exception preserving state authority to regulate motor vehicle safety.

A case in which the Court will decide (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.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who “is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” violates the Second Amendment as applied to the respondent.

A case in which the Court held that the thirty-day deadline for moving a lawsuit from state court to federal court is a mandatory rule that judges cannot extend for fairness reasons.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Helms-Burton Act grants U.S. courts jurisdiction over Cuban government agencies and instrumentalities sued for “trafficking” in confiscated property, even if the lawsuit does not satisfy one of the exceptions to immunity provided by the earlier, general Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA)?

A case in which the Court will decide whether to stay a district court injunction preventing the President from removing a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors “for cause” based on pre-appointment conduct without prior notice or a hearing.

A case in which the Court held that under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), pension plans may calculate an employer's withdrawal liability using actuarial assumptions selected after the statutory measurement date (the last day of the plan year before the employer's withdrawal).

A case in which the Court held that the New Jersey Transit Corporation is not an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from categorically requiring sports participants to compete based on their biological sex, rather than gender identity.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), creates an implied private right of action.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 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.”

A case in which the Court held that its decision in Heck v. Humphrey does not bar claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only prospective relief when the plaintiff has previously been punished under the challenged law.

A case in which the Court held that a government subpoena demanding a private organization's donor records inflicts an immediate injury to First Amendment freedom of association rights, allowing the organization to challenge the demand in federal court before it is enforced.

A case in which the Court held that an internet service provider does not commit "contributory copyright infringement" — meaning legal responsibility for copyright violations committed by someone else — simply by continuing to provide internet service to subscribers it knows have been flagged for piracy.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255.

A case in which the Court will decide 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 (RLUIPA).

A case in which the Court will decide whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, which permits interlocutory appeals of certain non-final orders that conclusively determine important issues separate from the merits.

A case in which the Court held that a motion to set aside a judgment as void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4) must be filed within a "reasonable time" as required by Rule 60(c)(1).

A case in which the Court held that a federal court cannot create jurisdiction over a lawsuit through its own erroneous ruling. When an appellate court reverses a district court's mistaken dismissal of a party who destroyed complete diversity, the jurisdictional defect never disappears and any trial verdict must be thrown out.

A case in which the Court held that federal law does not block state-law lawsuits against military contractors for actions that the government neither ordered nor authorized.

A case in which the Court held that the Sentencing Reform Act does not permit a defendant's term of supervised release to automatically extend when the defendant absconds.

A case in which the Court held that law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or faces imminent serious injury.

A case in which the Court held that the statutory bar in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E) that prohibits certiorari review of court of appeals decisions on second or successive habeas applications does not apply to federal prisoners, and § 2244(b)(1)’s bar on claims previously presented does not apply to federal prisoners’ motions under § 2255(h).

A case in which the Court held that criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.

A case in which the Court held that a candidate for elected office has standing under Article III of the Constitution to challenge election rules that govern the counting of votes in his election, regardless of whether those rules harm his electoral prospects or increase the cost of his campaign.

The Federal Tort Claims Act's postal exception — which bars lawsuits against the government for claims "arising out of the loss, miscarriage, or negligent transmission of letters or postal matter" — shields the United States from liability even when postal workers intentionally fail to deliver mail.

A case in which the Court held that a defendant who commits a single act that violates both 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A)(i)—using, carrying, or possessing a firearm during a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking crime—and §924(j)—which applies when such a violation causes death—may be convicted under only one of those provisions, not both.

A case in which the Court held that a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy”—i.e., attempts to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that a Delaware law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit conflicts with a valid Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and thus does not apply in a federal court sitting in diversity.

A case in which the Court held that federal district courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide (1) whether a privately owned and operated school’s educational decisions are considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students, and (2) whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits, or the Establishment Clause requires, a state to exclude religious schools from its charter-school program.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.

A case in which the Court will held that (1) the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., and (2) the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) of the FTCA overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout § 2680.

A case in which the Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 do not require children with disabilities to satisfy a heightened “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.

A case in which the Court held that the statute that provides combat-related special compensation (CRSC) to disabled veterans establishes its own settlement process for claims, which supersedes the Barring Act’s default six-year statute of limitations for most claims against the federal government.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.

A case in which the Court held that 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.

A case in which the Court held that 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.

A case in which the Court held that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does not violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

A case in which the Court held that a party who files a notice of appeal during the period between when their original appeal deadline expired and when the court reopens their time to appeal need not file a second notice after the reopening is granted.

A case in which the Court held that the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision does not unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider and therefore cannot be enforced via § 1983.