U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will decide whether the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider,” as used in the Video Privacy Protection Act’s definition of “consumer,” refers to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Stinson v. United States still correctly states the rule for deference that courts must give the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a complaint alleging a fiduciary breach in ERISA underperformance cases must include allegations of a “meaningful benchmark” to survive the pleading stage.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act stripped district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized by this court in Johnson v. Robison, to hear challenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether it has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case; and (2) whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.

A case in which the Court held that a generic drug manufacturer does not actively induce patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) when its communications consist only of legally required labeling, standard industry language, omissions, and vague statements that lack any affirmative purpose of 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 held that neither the Alien Tort Statute nor the Torture Victim Protection Act supplies a judicially implied private right of action for aiding-and-abetting liability.

A case in which the Court will decide whether execution of a geofence warrant in this case violated the Fourth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that 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 held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require a border officer to possess clear and convincing evidence that a lawful permanent resident has committed a crime involving moral turpitude before treating that resident as an applicant for admission rather than someone already admitted to the country.

A case in which the Court held that the Seventh Amendment's right to a jury trial does not require the FCC to involve a jury when issuing forfeiture orders.

A case in which the Court held that 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 held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which bars federal district courts from reviewing and nullifying state-court judgments, applies even when the state-court judgment under attack remains subject to an ongoing appeal 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 held that when a trial court prevents a defendant from completing the three-step Batson process for challenging racially discriminatory jury strikes, a state appellate court's subsequent finding that the defendant waived that challenge constitutes an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)...

A case in which the Court held that venue is proper only in the district where the alleged offense took place, not in the district where the targeted investigation was located.

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 held that a worker who handles goods on a purely intrastate (within one state) leg of a broader interstate journey qualifies for the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) §1 exemption, even if the worker never personally crosses state lines or loads and unloads vehicles that do.

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 judicial estoppel does not automatically bar a debtor's undisclosed civil claim based solely on a potential motive to conceal it. Instead, courts must look to the totality of the circumstances to distinguish between an inadvertent mistake and intentional bad faith.

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 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 held that when a criminal defendant signs an appeal waiver as part of a plea agreement, that waiver becomes unenforceable if enforcing it would produce a miscarriage of justice.

A case in which the Court held that 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.