U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court held that federal district courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide (1) whether a privately owned and operated school’s educational decisions are considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students, and (2) whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits, or the Establishment Clause requires, a state to exclude religious schools from its charter-school program.

A case in which the Court was asked to decide whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.

A case in which the Court will held that (1) the Supremacy Clause does not afford the United States a defense in a suit against it under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., and (2) the law enforcement proviso in §2680(h) of the FTCA overrides only the intentional-tort exception in that subsection, not the discretionary-function exception or other exceptions throughout § 2680.

A case in which the Court held that the statute that provides combat-related special compensation (CRSC) to disabled veterans establishes its own settlement process for claims, which supersedes the Barring Act’s default six-year statute of limitations for most claims against the federal government.

A case in which the Court held that the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 do not require children with disabilities to satisfy a heightened “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by pointing to the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.

A case in which the Court held that public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.

A case in which the Court held that a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.

A case in which the Court held that a party who files a notice of appeal during the period between when their original appeal deadline expired and when the court reopens their time to appeal need not file a second notice after the reopening is granted.

A case in which the Court held that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force does not violate the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

A case in which the Court held that the Medicaid Act’s “any qualified provider” provision does not unambiguously confer a private right upon a Medicaid beneficiary to choose a specific provider and therefore cannot be enforced via § 1983.

A case in which the Court held that the personal jurisdiction provision of the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that 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.

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 held that Congress did not violate the nondelegation doctrine in the way it gave power to the FCC to collect Universal Service Fund money, nor did the FCC violate the Constitution by letting a private, industry-controlled company make those collection decisions.

A case in which the Court held that 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 when the agency’s denial actions are “nationally applicable” or “based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect.”

A case in which the Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit does not necessarily have 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 held that the 30-day filing deadline in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) is a mandatory claims-processing rule, not a jurisdictional requirement, and the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order denying Convention Against Torture (CAT) relief in a withholding-only proceeding is not a “final order of removal” for purposes of triggering this deadline.

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 held that a nonparty cannot challenge a federal agency’s “final order” under the Hobbs Act’s judicial review provision and that 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 held that Mexico did not plausibly allege that U.S. gun manufacturers, by producing and selling firearms, aided and abetted Mexican cartels and thus cannot be held liable for violence in Mexico under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

A case in which the Court held that plaintiffs need not 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 held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)’s “extraordinary circumstances” standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

A case in which the Court held that a majority-group plaintiff need not prove anything different from a minority-group plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

A case in which the Court held that, 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 a court may not, 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 held that a Texas death-row inmate has standing to sue the state over its refusal to give him access to DNA testing.

A case in which the Court held that 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 struck down the Fifth Circuit's “moment of the threat” doctrine, which it applied when evaluating Fourth Amendment excessive force claims.

A case in which the Court held that the Hobbs Act does not preclude judicial review of an agency's statutory interpretation in district court enforcement proceedings, and district courts must independently determine whether the agency's interpretation is correct under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation.

A case in which the Court held that the Tobacco Control Act’s provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA’s denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval.