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 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.”
A case in which the Court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act’s enactment, then vacated and resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the Act’s enactment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant whose original sentence was imposed before the Act’s enactment, then vacated and resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the Act’s enactment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee—who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed—loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, violates the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to TikTok, violates the First Amendment.
A case in which the Court held that an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act is limited to those earned by the named defendant in that case, exclusive of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.
A case in which the Court will consider the scope of property interests and fraud in government contracting, particularly when deception occurs without clear economic harm.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
A case in which the Court held that the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies in cases involving seized money and that the plaintiffs must establish a clear trace between expropriated property (or the proceeds from its sale) and property present in the United States in connection with commercial activity.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under 11 U.S.C. § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.
