A case in which the Court will decide whether the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision unambiguously confers a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.
A case in which the Court will decide whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)—which strictly limits the circumstances in which an inmate can file a second petition for federal post-conviction relief—applies to all second habeas petitions (petitions filed after the first one) or only to specific types of second petitions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a state violates the First Amendment’s religion clauses by denying a religious organization an otherwise-available tax exemption because the organization does not meet the state’s criteria for religious behavior.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Congress violated the Constitution in the way it gave power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and whether the FCC then violated the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Congress violated the Constitution in the way it gave power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, and whether the FCC then violated the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions.
A case in which the Court will decide whether challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program should be heard exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”
A case in which the Court will decide whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction to review an Environmental Protection Agency action that affects only one state or region, simply because the EPA published that action alongside actions affecting other states in a single Federal Register notice.
A case in which the Court will decide whether challenges by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act’s Renewable Fuel Standard program should be heard exclusively in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit because the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”
A case in which the Court will decide whether Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
A case in which the Court will decide issues relating to the 30-day deadline to seek review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying withholding of deportation.
A case in which the Court will decide issues relating to the 30-day deadline to seek review of a ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals denying withholding of deportation.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a nonparty can challenge a federal agency’s “final order” under the Hobbs Act’s judicial review provision; and whether federal nuclear laws allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to store spent nuclear fuel at off-reactor sites.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a nonparty can challenge a federal agency’s “final order” under the Hobbs Act’s judicial review provision; and whether federal nuclear laws allow the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private companies to store spent nuclear fuel at off-reactor sites.
A case in which the Court will decide whether U.S. gun manufacturers can be held liable for violence in Mexico under theories of proximate causation and aiding and abetting, based on their domestic production and sale of firearms that are later trafficked to Mexican cartels.
A case in which the Court will decide whether U.S. gun manufacturers can be held liable for violence in Mexico under theories of proximate causation and aiding and abetting, based on their domestic production and sale of firearms that are later trafficked to Mexican cartels.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.
A case in which the Court will decide whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority” to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a court may, in considering whether to revoke an individual’s supervised release and impose a prison sentence, consider factors from the law governing sentencing not mentioned in the supervised release law.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, in cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Texas death-row inmate has standing to sue the state over its refusal to give him access to DNA testing pursuant to a law permitting DNA testing only when the person can prove that he would not have been convicted if the DNA testing produced exculpatory results.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Texas death-row inmate has standing to sue the state over its refusal to give him access to DNA testing pursuant to a law permitting DNA testing only when the person can prove that he would not have been convicted if the DNA testing produced exculpatory results.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a plaintiff can state a claim under a provision of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that bars a plan fiduciary from knowingly engaging in a transaction that is an exchange of goods or services between the plan and anyone barred from doing business with the plan, simply by alleging that such a transaction occurred.
A case in which the Court will decide whether courts should apply the “moment of the threat” doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Hobbs Act, a federal district court is bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a Texas law that requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of each of its users before providing access should be subject to “rational basis” review or “strict scrutiny.”
