U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

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 SEC may seek equitable disgorgement under 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(5) and (d)(7) without showing investors suffered pecuniary harm.

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 a federal court that initially exercises jurisdiction and stays a case pending arbitration maintains jurisdiction over a post-arbitration Section 9 or 10 application where jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking.

A case in which the Court will decide whether venue is proper in a district where no offense conduct took place, so long as the statute's intent element “contemplates” effects that could occur there.

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 will decide whether the federal election-day statutes, 2 U.S.C. § 7, 2 U.S.C. § 1, and 3 U.S.C. § 1, preempt a state law that allows ballots that are cast by federal election day to be received by election officials after that day.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c), preempts a state common-law claim against a broker for negligently selecting a motor carrier or driver.

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 will decide (1) whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment when the compensation is based on the artificially depressed auction sale price rather than the property's fair market value, and (2) whether the government's forfeiture of real property whose value significantly exceeds the tax debt constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, particularly when the tax debt itself was disputed.

A case in which the Court will decide whether district courts have the authority to excuse the thirty-day procedural time limit for removal in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).

A case in which the Court will decide whether the legal right to sue under Title III of the LIBERTAD Act is tied to the confiscated property claim or the hypothetical, unexpired duration of the original property interest.

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 a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives "express authorization" violates the Second Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives "express authorization" violates the Second Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether pension plans calculating an employer's withdrawal liability “as of the end of the plan year” must use the financial assumptions that existed at year-end, or whether they can use different assumptions adopted after year-end as long as those assumptions are based on information available at the time.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is 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 Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow a state to designate school sports teams for girls and boys based on students' biological sex as determined at birth.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow a state to designate school sports teams for girls and boys based on students' biological sex as determined at birth.

A case in which the Court will decide whether an oil company that produced crude oil during World War II to fulfill federal contracts for refining that oil into fuel can have its case heard in federal court, even though the specific contracts did not explicitly direct how the oil should be produced.

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 will 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 will decide whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.

A case in which the Court will decide whether its decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only prospective relief when the plaintiff has previously been punished under the challenged law, and whether such a bar applies even when the plaintiff never had access to federal habeas review.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a First Amendment challenge to a state investigatory subpoena when the subject of the subpoena has demonstrated an objectively reasonable chilling effect on its constitutional rights, or whether such claims must instead first be adjudicated in state court.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals' judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).

A case in which the Court will decide whether an internet service provider can be held liable for copyright infringement simply for knowing about ongoing infringement by users and not terminating their accounts, and whether such knowledge alone is enough to find willful infringement under the Copyright Act.

A case in which the Court will decide whether district courts may consider sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act's nonretroactive reduction of mandatory minimum penalties—which can result in defendants serving sentences decades longer than those imposed for identical conduct today—when determining whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

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 district courts may consider sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act's nonretroactive reduction of mandatory minimum penalties—which can result in defendants serving sentences decades longer than those imposed for identical conduct today—when determining whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

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 will decide whether the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), permits the president to impose tariffs.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), permits the president to impose tariffs.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court's final judgment must be vacated if it is later determined that the case lacked complete diversity at the time of removal from state court, and whether a plaintiff can defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to assert a viable claim against a nondiverse defendant.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.