Allen v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. 搂搂 922(g) and 924 require the government to prove a criminal defendant鈥檚 mens rea as to each substantive element of the enumerated statutory offenses, including the defendant鈥檚 knowledge of the fact that renders illegal the otherwise constitutionally protected possession of a firearm.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Babb v. Sec鈥檡, Department of Veterans Affairs
Petition granted limited to the following question: Whether the federal-sector provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, which provides that personnel actions affecting agency employees aged 40 years or older shall be made free from any 鈥渄iscrimination based on age,鈥 29 U.S.C. 搂633(a), requires a plaintiff to prove that age was a but-for cause of the challenged personnel action.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Barrett v. United States
Whether the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. 搂 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness, a question that evenly divides six Courts of Appeals.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
City of Pensacola, Florida v. Kondrat'yev
1. Whether plaintiffs have standing to sue under the Establishment Clause when their only alleged injury consists of the feelings of 鈥渙ffense鈥 produced by observing a passive religious display. 2. Whether, under Town of Greece v. Galloway, 134 S. Ct. 1811 (2014), passive religious displays with a long historical pedigree must be torn down because of claims that they have the purpose or effect of endorsing religion
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Dept. of Commerce v. USDC SD NY
Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker鈥攊ncluding by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials 鈥攚hen there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Douglas v. United States
Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. 搂924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue
Does it violate the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution to invalidate a generally available and religiously neutral student- aid program simply because the program affords students the choice of attending religious schools
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
GE Energy Power Conversion France SAS, Corp. v. Outokumpu Stainless
Whether the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the 鈥淣ew York Convention鈥) permits a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement to compel arbitration based on the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
Area(s) of Law:- Arbitration
Hall v. United States
Whether the Fifth Amendment鈥檚 Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the federal sentencing of an individual already sentenced by a state for the same conduct.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus, CA
(1) Whether taking and due process claims arising from an administrative disapproval ripen under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission et al. v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) upon disapproval of an initial application or only upon a final, definitive determination of permitted use of property. (2) Whether the procedure set up by the California Supreme Court requiring that all challenges to a subdivision decision be filed within 90 days - and barring later claims - provides an available and adequate state remedy under Williamson for taking claims which do not ripen until later.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights 搂 1983
Jefferson v. United States
1. Whether an application for a search warrant to examine the contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest must show more to establish probable cause that evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the cell phone than only an opinion that criminal gang members commonly use cell phones to communicate about their plans 2. Whether the 搂 924(c) residual clause is unconstitutionally vague
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kelly v. United States
Whether a public official defrauds the government by citing a traffic study as the purpose of realigning the George Washington Bridge and causing a gridlock when political motives drove the public official鈥檚 actions.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. V. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc.
Whether, when a plaintiff asserts new claims, federal preclusion principles can bar a defendant from raising defenses that were not actually litigated and resolved in any prior case between the parties.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Mann v. United States
Whether the definition of 鈥渃rime of violence鈥 in 18 U.S.C. 搂 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Moody v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. 搂924(a) provides for criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate commerce absent proof that they knew of their felon status, or of the firearm鈥檚 movement in interstate commerce?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Opati v. Republic of Sudan
Whether, consistent with this Court's decision in Republic of Austria v. Altmann, 541 U.S. 677 (2004), the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies retroactively; thereby permitting recovery of punitive damages under 28 U.S.C. 搂 l605A(c) against foreign states for terrorist activities occurring prior to the passage of the current version of the statute
Area(s) of Law:- Sovereign Immunity
Reed v. United States
1. Whether the 鈥渒nowingly鈥 provision of 18 U.S.C. 搂 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a 18 U.S.C. 搂 922(g) crime 2. Whether expert testimony concerning a defendant鈥檚 intellectual disability and mental health conditions 鈥 such as Petitioner鈥檚 full-scale IQ of 61 and diagnosis of schizophrenia paranoid type 鈥 is relevant and admissible to support a justification defense to a 搂 922(g) crime 3. Whether a mandatory-minimum sentence of 15 years in prison violates the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment, because the sentencing court is afforded no discretion to impose a lower sentence based on the defendant鈥檚 intellectual disability and mental health conditions
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.
Whether courts should determine ownership of a tax refund paid to an affiliated group based on the federal common law 鈥淏ob Richards rule,鈥 as three Circuits hold, or based on the law of the relevant State, as four Circuits hold.
Area(s) of Law:- Property Law
Rodriguez v. United States
Whether the 鈥榬isk of force鈥 clause of 18 U.S.C. 搂924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc.
Whether, under section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 搂 1117(a), willful infringement is a prerequisite for an award of an infringer鈥檚 profits for a violation of section 43(a), id. 搂 1125(a).
Area(s) of Law:- Trademarks
Ross, Sec. of Commerce v. California
Whether the district court erred in enjoining the Secretary of Commerce from reinstating a citizenship question to the 2020 decennial census.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Shular v. United States
Whether the determination of a 鈥渟erious drug offense鈥 under the Armed Career Criminal Act requires the same categorical approach used in the determination of a 鈥渧iolent felony鈥 under the same statute
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Sperling v. United States of America
Whether 18 U.S.C. 搂 3583(k) is unconstitutional in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments as held by the Tenth Circuit in United States v. Haymond, 869 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2017).
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Thole v. U.S. Bank, N.A.
(1) Whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek injunctive relief against fiduciary misconduct under 29 U.S.C. 搂 1132(a)(3) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; (2) whether an ERISA plan participant or beneficiary may seek restoration of plan losses caused by fiduciary breach under 29 U.S.C. 搂 1132(a)(2) without demonstrating individual financial loss or the imminent risk thereof; and (3) whether petitioners have demonstrated Article III standing.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
Trump v. NAACP
Whether the Department of Homeland Security鈥檚 (DHS) decision to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy is judicially reviewable. Whether DHS鈥檚 decision to wind down the DACA policy is lawful.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Ward v. United States
1. Does erroneous advice from trial counsel as stated herein constitute 鈥業neffective assistance of counsel鈥?鈥 2. Did the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals abuse its discretion by not granting Petitioner an evidentiary hearing for Petitioner鈥檚 allegation that Petitioner received erroneous advice from trial counsel on the plea phase of trial?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Watkins v. United States
(1) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. 搂 924( c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness, a question that divides seven courts of appeals. (2) Whether Hobbs Act conspiracy can automatically be characterized as a categorical crime of violence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Kisor v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Under the Auer deference doctrine, courts should defer to a government agency鈥檚 interpretation of a regulation only where such regulation is ambiguous; unambiguous regulations must be given the effect of their plain meaning.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Banister v. Davis
Whether and under what circumstances a timely Rule 59(e) motion should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas petition under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U. S. 524 (2005).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans v. Wilkie, Sec. of VA
Whether this Court Should Grant Certiorari to Resolve an Important Point of Law and a Conflict Between Circuits Concerning Judicial Review of an Interpretive VA Regulation Under the Administrative Procedures Act and Whether It Should Be Foreclosed Under 38 U.S.C. 搂 502 When the Veterans Judicial Reform Act Provides the Sole Avenue for Review of the Secretary鈥檚 Decisions
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Dex Media, Inc. v. Click-To-Call
Whether the American Invents Act, 35 U.S.C. 搂 314(d), permits appeal of the PTAB鈥檚 decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that the Act's 搂 315(b) time bar did not apply.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.
Whether the government edicts doctrine extends to鈥撯揳nd thus renders uncopyrightable鈥撯搘orks that lack the force of law, such as the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Gray v. Wilkie, Sec. of VA
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. 搂 502 to review an interpretive rule reflecting the Department of Veterans Affairs鈥 definitive interpretation of its own regulation, even if the VA chooses to promulgate that rule through its adjudication manual.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, Att'y Gen.
Whether a request for equitable tolling by a person subject to the criminal alien bar is a factual determination such that judicial review is precluded by 8 U.S.C. 搂1252(a)(2)(C) or a legal determination such that it is reviewable under 搂1252(a)(2)(D) as a question of law.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Maine Community Health Options v. United States
Whether a congressional intent derived from the legislative history of an appropriations rider can impliedly repeal a statutory payment obligation of the government.
Area(s) of Law:- Insurance Law
Klein v. Or. Bureau of Labor and Indus.
Whether Oregon violated the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment by compelling the Kleins to design and create a custom wedding cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding ritual, in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Richardson v. United States
Whether the First Step Act of 2018 applies to defendants who were sentenced prior to its enactment but whose convictions and sentences remain pending on direct review.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Herrold
Whether a state offense that criminalizes continued unpermitted presence in a dwelling following the formation of intent to commit a crime has 鈥渢he basic elements of unlawful * * * remaining in * * * a building or structure, with intent to commit a crime,鈥 Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599 (1990), thereby qualifying as 鈥渂urglary鈥 under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian
1. Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies is a 鈥渃hallenge鈥 to EPA鈥檚 cleanup jurisdictionally barred by 搂 113 of CERCLA. 2. Whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a 鈥減otentially responsible party鈥 that must seek EPA鈥檚 approval under CERCLA 搂 122(e)(6) before engaging in remedial action, even if EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup. 3. Whether CERCLA preempts state common law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Comcast Corp. v. National Assn. of African Am.-Owned Media
Does a claim of race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. 搂 1981 fail in the absence of but-for causation?
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma
鈥淲hether the three-year limitations period in Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1113(2), which runs from 鈥渢he earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation,鈥 bars suit where all of the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendants more than three years before the plaintiff filed the complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information.鈥
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA
McKinney v. Arizona
(1) Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted. (2) Whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) requires resentencing.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Monasky v. Taglieri
1) Whether a district court鈥檚 determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo, as seven circuits have held, under a deferential version of de novo review, as the First Circuit has held, or under clear-error review, as the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held. 2) Where an infant is too young to acclimate to her surroundings, whether a subjective agreement between the infant鈥檚 parents is necessary to establish her habitual residence under the Hague Convention.
Area(s) of Law:- Family Law
Allen v. Cooper, Gov. of NC
Whether Congress validly abrogated state sovereign immunity via the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, Pub. L. No. 101-553, 104 Stat. 2749 (1990), in providing remedies for authors of original expression whose federal copyrights are infringed by States.
Area(s) of Law:- Copyright
Holguin-Hernandez v. United States
Whether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant鈥檚 sentence.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Retirement Plans Comm. of IBM v. Jander
Whether the鈥渕ore harm than good鈥 pleading standard set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 573 U.S. 409 (2014) can be satisfied by generalized allegations that the harm of an inevitable disclosure of an alleged fraud generally increases over time.
Area(s) of Law:- ERISA