Shows
Free Speech PressTrump v. CASA, Inc. (24A884) 05/15/2524A884 TRUMP V. CASA, INC.DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 654902LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER:--24A885 TRUMP V. WASHINGTONDECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 553485LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER:--24A886 TRUMP V. NEW JERSEYDECISION BELOW: 131 F.4th 27LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER:--QUESTION PRESENTED:THE APPLICATIONS (24A884, 24A885, AND 24A886) FOR PARTIAL STAYS ARE CONSOLIDATED AND DEFERRED PENDING ORAL ARGUMENT. THE APPLICATIONS ARE SET FOR A TOTAL OF ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT AT 10 A.M. ON...2025-05-162h 15Free Speech PressOK Charter School Board v. Drummond (24-394) 04/30/2524-394 OK CHARTER SCHOOL BOARD V. DRUMMONDDECISION BELOW: 558 P.3d 1LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 121,694QUESTION PRESENTED: This Court has "repeatedly held that a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits." Carson as next friend of O. C. v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767, 778 (2022). Three times, the Court hasapplied that principle to strike down "state efforts to withhold otherwise available public benefits from religious organizations." Id. at 778-79 (citing Trinity Lutheran Church ofColumbia, Inc. v. Comer, 582 U.S. 449 (2017); Espinoza v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue, 591...2025-05-012h 11Free Speech PressLaboratory Corp. of America v. Davis (24-304) 04/29/2524-304 LABORATORY CORP. OF AMERICA V. DAVISDECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 489288LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-55873QUESTION PRESENTED: o Whether a federal court may certify a class action when some of its members lack any Article III injury.THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER A FEDERAL COURT MAY CERTIFY A CLASS ACTION PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23(B)(3) WHENSOME MEMBERS OF THE PROPOSED CLASS LACK ANY ARTICLE III INJURY. EXPEDITED BRIEFING....2025-05-012h 15Free Speech PressMartin v. United States (24-362) 04/29/2524-362 MARTIN V. UNITED STATESDECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 1716235LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10062QUESTION PRESENTED: Petitioners are the innocent victims of a wrong-house raid conducted by an FBI SWAT team in Atlanta, Georgia. Seeking a remedy for torts committed against them, Petitioners brought a cause of action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. In its opinion below, the Eleventh Circuit held that all of Petitioners' FTCA claims are barred by sovereign immunity supplied either through the Constitution's Supremacy Clause or the FTCA's discretionary-function exception. In...2025-05-0152 minFree Speech PressSoto v. United States (24-320) 04/28/2524-320 SOTO V. UNITED STATESDECISION BELOW: 92 F.4th 1094LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2022-2011QUESTION PRESENTED: This case determines whether thousands of medically retired combat veterans should receive all the combat related special compensation (CRSC) that Congress specifically authorized for combat veterans. The government has elected to calculatethe period of retroactive compensation due using the procedure in the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702) instead of the one in the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a)-a maneuver that allows the government to apply the Barring Act's six- year limitations period in or...2025-04-291h 02Free Speech PressA. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools (24-249) 04/28/2524-249 A.J.T. V. OSSEO AREA SCHOOLSDECISION BELOW: 96 F.4th 1058LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1399QUESTION PRESENTED: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act) require public entities and organizations that receive federal funding to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. In the decision below, the Eighth Circuit held that, for discrimination claims "based on educational services" brought by children with disabilities, these statutes are violated only if school officials acted with ''bad faith or gross misjudgment." App.3a.2025-04-291h 26Free Speech PressDiamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA (24-7) 04/23/2524-7 DIAMOND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, LLC V. EPADECISION BELOW: 98 F.4th 288LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1081, 22-1083, 22-1084, 22-1085QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 209(a) of the Clean Air Act generally preempts States from adopting emission standards for new motor vehicles. 42 U.S.C. § 7543(a). But under Section 209(b) of that Act, EPA may grant California and only California-a waiver from federal preemption to set its own vehicle-emission standards. Before granting a preemption waiver, EPA must find that California "need[s]" its own emission standards "to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions." Id. § 7543(b)(1)(B...2025-04-241h 04Free Speech PressCIR v. Zuch (24-416) 04/22/2524-416 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. ZUCHDECISION BELOW: 97 F.4th 81LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-2244QUESTION PRESENTED: o Whether 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.CERT. GRANTED 1/10/2025You can read the oral argument here:https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument...2025-04-2247 minFree Speech PressMahmoud v. Taylor ( 24-297) 04/22/2524-297 MAHMOUD V. TAYLORDECISION BELOW: 102 F.4th 191LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-1890QUESTION PRESENTED: Respondent Montgomery County Board of Education requires elementary school teachers to read their students storybooks celebrating gender transitions, Pride parades, and same-sex playground romance. The storybooks were chosen to disrupt "cisnormativity" and "either/or thinking" among students. The Board's own principals objected that the curriculum was "not appropriate for the intended age group," presented gender ideology as "fact," "sham[ed]" students with contrary opinions, and was "dismissive of religious beliefs." The Board initially allowed parents to...2025-04-222h 29Free Speech PressParrish v. United States (24-275) 04/21/2524-275 PARRISH V. UNITED STATESDECISION BELOW: 74 F.4th 160LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 20-1766QUESTION PRESENTED: Ordinarily, litigants must file a notice of appeal within 30 or 60 days of an adverse 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), however, district courts can reopen an expired appeal period when a party did not receive timely notice of the judgment. The Courts of Appeals have divided about whether a notice of appeal filed after the expiration of the ordinary appeal period but before the ap...2025-04-2253 minFree Speech PressKennedy, Sec. of H&HS v. Braidwood Mgmt., Inc. (24-316) 04/21/2524-316 KENNEDY V. BRAIDWOOD MANAGEMENT, INC.DECISION BELOW: 104 F.4th 930LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10326QUESTION PRESENTED: The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (Task Force), which sits within the Public Health Service of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), issues clinical recommendations for preventive medical services, such as screenings and medications to prevent serious diseases. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, health insurance issuers and group health plans must cover certain preventive services recommended by the Task Force without imposing any...2025-04-221h 26Free Speech PressMedina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (23-1275) 04/02/2523-1275 MEDINA, DIRECTOR SC DEPT OF HEALTH V. PLANNED PARENTHOODDECISION BELOW: 95 F.4th 152LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-1043QUESTION PRESENTED: More than 30 years ago, this Court first applied what would become known as the "Blessing factors," holding that a Medicaid Act provision created a privately enforceableright to certain reimbursement rates. Wilder v. Va. Hosp. Ass'n, 496 U.S. 498, 509-10 (1990). Later, the Court distilled from Wilder a multi-factor test for deciding whether a "statutory provision gives rise to a federal right" privately enforceable under Section 1983. Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329, 340 (1997). Five years...2025-04-111h 33Free Speech PressFuld v. PLO (24-20) 04/01/2524-20 FULD V. PLODECISION BELOW: 82 F.4th 74LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-76, 22-496QUESTION PRESENTED: The Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 18 U.S.C. § 2331 et seq., provides an extraterritorial private right of action for victims of terror attacks committed against American nationals abroad. In 2019, Congress amended the ATA by enacting the Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act (PSJVTA). Under the PSJVTA, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestinian Authority (PA) "shall be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction" in an ATA action if: (a...2025-04-111h 53Free Speech PressRivers v. Guerrero (23-1345) 03/31/2523-1345 RIVERS V. GUERRERODECISION BELOW: 99 F.4th 216LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-11031QUESTION PRESENTED: Under the federal habeas statute, a prisoner "always gets one chance to bring a federal habeas challenge to his conviction," Banister v. Davis, 590 U.S. 504, 509 (2020). After that, thestringent gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) bar nearly all attempts to file a "second or successive habeas corpus application." Here, petitioner sought to amend his initialhabeas application while it was pending on appeal. The Fifth Circuit applied § 2244(b)(2) and rejected the amended filing....2025-04-1151 minFree Speech PressCatholic Charities Bureau v. WI Labor Review Comm'n (24-154) 03/31/25QUESTION PRESENTED: Wisconsin exempts from its state unemployment tax system certain religious organizations that are "operated, supervised, controlled, or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches" and that are also "operated primarily for religious purposes." Petitioners are Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Superior and several sub-entities. Although all agree Catholic Charities is controlled by a church-the Diocese of Superior-the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Catholic Charities is not "operated primarily for religious purposes" and thus does not qualify for the tax exemption. Specifically, the court held that Catholic Charities' activities...2025-04-111h 39Free Speech PressFCC v. Consumers' Research (24-354) 03/26/2524-354 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION V. CONSUMERS' RESEARCHDECISION BELOW: 109 F.4th 743LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-60008QUESTION PRESENTED: In 47 U.S.C. 254, Congress required the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) to operate universal service subsidy programs using mandatorycontributions from telecommunications carriers. The Commission has appointed a private company as the programs' Administrator, authorizing that company to perform administrative tasks such as sending out bills, collecting contributions, and disbursing funds to beneficiaries. The questions presented are as follows:1. Whether Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the Commission...2025-03-262h 33Free Speech PressOklahoma v. EPA (23-1067) 03/25/2523-1067 OKLAHOMA V. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYDECISION BELOW: 93 F.4th 1262LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-9514QUESTION PRESENTED: Under the Clean Air Act, each state must adopt an implementation plan to meet national standards, which EPA then reviews for compliance with the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410. In 2023, EPA published disapprovals of 21 states' plans implementing national ozone standards. It did so in a single Federal Register notice. The Act specifies that "[a] petition for review of the [EPA's] action in approving or promulgatingany implementation plan ... or any other final a...2025-03-2647 minFree Speech PressEPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C. (23-1229) 03/25/2523-1229 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY V. CALUMET SHREVEPORT REFININGDECISION BELOW: 86 F.4th 1121LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-60266, 22-60425, 22-60433, 22-60434QUESTION PRESENTED: In a pair of final actions, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied 105 petitions filed by small oil refineries seeking exemptions from the requirements of the Clean Air Act's Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Six of those refineries petitioned for review of EPA's decisions in the Fifth Circuit, which denied the government's motion for transfer to the...2025-03-261h 43Free Speech PressRiley v. Bondi, Att'y Gen. (23-1270) 03/24/25QUESTION PRESENTEDPetitioner Pierre Riley, ineligible for cancellation of removal or discretionary relief from removal, sought deferral in withholding-only proceedings, pursuant to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. After the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision reversing an immigration judge's grant of relief, Riley promptly petitioned for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Although both parties urged the court to decide the merits of the case, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Riley's petition for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(1), which...2025-03-2556 minFree Speech PressLouisiana v. Callais (24-109) 03/24/25QUESTION PRESENTED:Over the State's strenuous objections, the Middle District of Louisiana held, Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. La. 2022)-and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Robinson v. Ardoin, 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023)-that Louisiana likely violated Section 2of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by failing to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The Fifth Circuit gave the Legislature a small window of time to adopt its own remedial plan, or else the State would have to go to trial, which wouldalmost certainly end in the Middle District imposing its own preferred map. Rather than acquiesce...2025-03-251h 19Free Speech PressTrump v. Hawaii (17-965) 04/25/18Trump v. HawaiiDocket Number: 17-965Date Argued: 04/25/18https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/17-965_l5gm.pdfQUESTION PRESENTEDThe Constitution and Acts of Congress confer on the President broad authority to prohibit or restrict the entry of aliens outside the United States when he deems it in theNation's interest. Exercising that authority after a worldwide review by multiple government agencies of whether foreign governments provide sufficient information to screen theirnationals, the President issued Proclamation No. 9645, 82 Fed. Reg. 45,161 (Sept. 27, 2017). In ac...2025-03-191h 06Free Speech PressCC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd. (23-1201) 03/03/25CC/Devas Ltd. v. Antrix Corp. Ltd.Docket Number: 23-1201Date Argued: 03/03/25https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1201_n758.pdfQuestion Presented:Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.2025-03-1349 minFree Speech PressMurphy v. NCAA (16-476) 12/04/17DECISION BELOW: 832 F.3d 389LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 14-4546, 14-4568, 14-4569QUESTION PRESENTED:This Court's decision in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992), holds that the Constitution's fundamental federal structure does not permit Congress to "directly . . . compelthe States to require or prohibit [certain] acts." Id. at 166. In September 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act("PASPA"), 28 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq., against a constitutional challenge under New York by construing PASPA’s proscription against States "authoriz[ing]" sports wagering "by law"nar...2025-03-121h 03Free Speech PressNRC v. Texas (23-1300) 03/05/25NRC v. TexasDocket Number: 23-1300Date Argued: 03/05/25Interim Storage Partners, LLC v. Texas (23-1312)Consolidated23-1300_e29g.pdf23-1300 NRC V. TEXAS DECISION BELOW: 78 F.4th 827 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-60743 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Whether the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq., which authorizes a "party aggrieved" by an agency's "final order" to petition for review in a court of appeals, 28 U.S.C. 2344, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency's statutory authority. 2. Whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U...2025-03-091h 35Free Speech PressSmith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (23-1141) 03/04/25Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos MexicanosDocket Number: 23-1141Date Argued: 03/04/2523-1141_8m59.pdfDECISION BELOW: 91 F.4th 511 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1823 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Mexican Government has sued leading members of the American firearms industry, seeking to hold them liable for harms inflicted by Mexican drug cartels. According to Mexico, America's firearms companies have engaged in a series of business practices for decades-from selling semi-automatic rifles, to making magazines that hold over ten rounds, to failing to impose various sales restrictions-that have created a supply of firearms later smuggled across the border and ultimately used by...2025-03-091h 31Free Speech PressBLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman (23-1259) 03/03/25BLOM Bank SAL v. HonickmanDocket Number: 23-1259Date Argued: 03/03/2523-1259_3e04.pdf23-1259 BLOM BANK SAL V. HONICKMAN DECISION BELOW: 6 F.4th 487 LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1039 QUESTION PRESENTED: For more than 70 years, this Court has "required a movant seeking relief under Rule 60 (b)(6)" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "to show 'extraordinary circumstances' justifying the reopening of a final judgment." Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 535 (2005) (quoting Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)). This Court has also stressed that a movant must be "faultless" to obtain relief. Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Lt...2025-03-0952 minFree Speech PressAmes v. OH Dept. of Youth Services (23-1039) 02/26/25Ames v. OH Dept. of Youth ServicesDocket Number: 23-1039Date Argued: 02/26/25https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1039_1an2.pdfDECISION BELOW: 87 F.4th 822LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-3341QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show "background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant isthat unusual employer who discriminates against the majority." App. 5a.2025-02-2754 minFree Speech PressPerttu v. Richards (23-1324) 02/25/25Perttu v. RichardsDocket Number: 23-1324Date Argued: 02/25/25https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1324_bq7d.pdfDECISION BELOW: 96 F.4th 911LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1298QUESTION PRESENTED: In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regardingexhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?2025-02-261h 16Free Speech PressEsteras v. United States (23-7483) 02/25/25Esteras v. United StatesDocket Number: 23-7483Date Argued: 02/25/25https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-7483_6k47.pdfDECISION BELOW: 88 F.4th 1163LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-3422The supervised-release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), lists factors from 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) for a court to consider when sentencing a person for violating a supervised release condition. In that list, Congress omitted the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(2)(A)-the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of theoffense, promote resp...2025-02-261h 15Free Speech PressGutierrez v. Saenz (23-7809) 02/24/25Gutierrez v. SaenzDocket Number: 23-7809Date Argued: 02/24/25https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-7809_3e04.pdfDECISION BELOW: 93 F.4th 267LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-70009QUESTION PRESENTED: In Reed v. Goertz, 598 U.S. 230, 234 (2023), this Court held that Rodney Reed has standing to pursue a declaratory judgment that Texas's post-conviction DNA statute was unconstitutional because ''Reed suffered an injury in fact," the named defendant "caused Reed's injury," and if a federal court concludes that Texas's statute violates due process, it...2025-02-261h 34Free Speech PressCunningham v. Cornell University (23-1007) 01/22/25Cunningham v. Cornell UniversityDocket Number: 23-1007Date Argued:01/22/25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1007_10n2.pdf
DECISION BELOW: 86 F.4th 961
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 21-88, 21-96, 21-114
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1) (C), prohibits a plan fiduciary from "engag[ing] in a transaction, if he knows or should know that such transaction constitutes a direct or indirect furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a p...2025-01-231h 30Free Speech PressBarnes v. Felix (23-1239) 01/22/25Barnes v. FelixDocket Number: 23-1239Date Argued:01/22/25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1239_4fbi.pdf
DECISION BELOW: 91 F.4th 393
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-20519
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Fourth Amendment prohibits a police officer from using "unreasonable" force. U.S. Const. amend. IV. In Graham v. Connor, this Court held that reasonableness depends on "the totality of the circumstances." 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) (quotation marks omitted). But four circuits-the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth-cabin Graham. Those circuits evaluate whether a...2025-01-231h 15Free Speech PressMcLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp. (23-1226) 01/21/25McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp.Docket Number: 23-1226Date Argued:01/21/25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1226_apl1.pdf
DECISION BELOW: 2023 WL 7015279
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-15710, 22-15732
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.2025-01-211h 13Free Speech PressFDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (23-1187) 01/21/25FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.Docket Number: 23-1187Date Argued:01/21/25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1187_hgcj.pdf
DECISION BELOW: 2024 WL 1945307
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-60037, 23-60128, 23-60545
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, Div. A, 123 Stat. 1776, requires a person to obtain authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before introducing a new tobacco product into interstate commerce. If FDA denies an application for authorization, "any person...2025-01-211h 12Free Speech PressFree Speech Coalition v. Paxton (23-1122) 01/15/25Free Speech Coalition v. PaxtonDocket Number: 23-1122Date Argued: 01/15/25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1122_4f15.pdf
DECISION BELOW: 95 F.4th 263
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-50627
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to
constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review-rather th...2025-01-152h 05Free Speech PressWaetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services (23-971) 01/14/25Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy ServicesDocket Number: 23-971Date Argued: 01/14/25
23-971
DECISION BELOW: 82 F.4th 918
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-1252
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) empowers district courts, on just terms and under circumstances specified in that Rule, to "relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding."
The question presented, which has divided the courts of appeals, is whether a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a "final judgment, order, or proceeding" under Rule 60 (b).
2025-01-1449 minFree Speech PressThompson v. United States (23-1095) 01/14/25Thompson v. United StatesDocket Number: 23-1095Date Argued: 01/14/25
23-1095
DECISION BELOW: 89 F.4th 1010
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-2254
QUESTION PRESENTED:
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.
2025-01-141h 17Free Speech PressStanley v. City of Sanford (23-997) 01/13/25Stanley v. City of SanfordDocket Number: 23-997Date Argued: 01/13/25
23-997 STANLEY V. CITY OF SANFORD, FLORIDA
DECISION BELOW: 83 F.4th 1333
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-10002
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee-who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed-lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-997_o75p.pdf
2025-01-131h 18Free Speech PressHewitt v. United States (23-1002 & 23-1150) Consolidated 01/13/25Hewitt v. United StatesDocket Number: 23-1002Date Argued: 01/13/25
&
Duffey v. United States
Docket Number: 23-1150
Date Argued: 01/13/25
Consolidated
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1002_l537.pdf
23-1002 HEWITT V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 92 F.4th 304
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-10265
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The First Step Act (FSA) significantly reduced the mandatory minimum sentences
for several federal drug and firearm offenses. First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-
391, §§ 401, 403, 132 Stat. 5194, 5220-5222...2025-01-131h 30Free Speech PressTikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen. (24-656 & 24-657) Consolidated 01/10/25TikTok, Inc. v. Garland, Att'y Gen.Docket Number: 24-656Date Argued: 01/10/25
Firebaugh v. Garland, Att'y Gen.
Docket Number: 24-657
Date Argued: 01/10/25
Consolidated
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-656_1an2.pdf2025-01-112h 28Free Speech PressDewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. (23-900) 12/11/24Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc.Docket Number: 23-900Date Argued: 12/11/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-900_7m48.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Whether an award of the "defendant's profits" under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117
(a), can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate
non-party corporate affiliates.
2024-12-111h 10Free Speech PressSeven County Coalition v. Eagle County (23-975) 12/10/24Seven County Coalition v. Eagle CountyDocket Number: 23-975Date Argued: 12/10/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-975_6k47.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED:
In Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 770 (2004), this Court
held that when an agency cannot prevent an environmental effect "due to its limited statutory
authority over the relevant actions," the National Environmental Policy Act does not require it
to study that effect. This holding has divided the courts of appeals. Five circuits read Public
Citizen to mean that an agency's environmental review can stop wh...2024-12-101h 50Free Speech PressFeliciano v. Dept. of Transportation (23-861) 12/09/24Feliciano v. Dept. of TransportationDocket Number: 23-861Date Argued: 12/09/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-861_0n13.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED:
This case presents a question of critical importance to hundreds of thousands of
Americans who serve their country both as federal civilian employees and members of
the Armed Services' reserve components.
Congress enacted the differential pay statute, 5 U.S.C. § 5538, to eliminate the
financial burden that reservists face when called to active duty at pay rates below their
federal civilian salaries. To ensure that the...2024-12-101h 13Free Speech PressKousisis v. United States (23-909) 12/09/24Kousisis v. United StatesDocket Number: 23-909Date Argued: 12/09/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-909_b97c.pdf
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The circuits are split 6-5 on the validity of the fraudulent inducement theory of mail and
wire fraud. The Questions Presented are:
Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud,
even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme.
Whether a sovereign's statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when
co...2024-12-101h 26Free Speech PressFDA v. Wages and White Lion (23-1038) 12/02/24FDA v. Wages and White LionDocket Number: 23-1038Date Argued: 12/02/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-1038_3d94.pdf2024-12-061h 20Free Speech PressUnited States v. Miller ( 23-824) 12/02/24United States v. MillerDocket Number: 23-824Date Argued: 12/02/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-824_5hek.pdf2024-12-0653 minFree Speech PressHungary v. Simon (23-867) 12/03/24Hungary v. Simon Docket Number: 23-867 Date Argued: 12/03/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-867_8m59.pdf
2024-12-061h 24Free Speech PressUnited States v. Skrmetti (23-477) 12/04/24United States v. SkrmettiDocket Number: 23-477Date Argued: 12/04/24
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-477_c07d.pdf2024-12-062h 21Free Speech PressNVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB (23-970) 11/13/24NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder ABDocket Number: 23-970Date Argued: 11/13/24
The transcript to this oral argument can be found at:
23-970_l537.pdf
2024-11-131h 27Free Speech PressDelligatti v. United States (23-825) 11/12/24Delligatti v. United StatesDocket Number: 23-825Date Argued: 11/12/24
The transcript to this oral argument can be found at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-825_7l48.pdf2024-11-121h 03Free Speech PressVelazquez v. Garland, Att'y Gen. (23-929) 11/12/24Velazquez v. Garland, Att'y Gen.Docket Number: 23-929Date Argued: 11/12/24
The transcript to this oral argument can be found at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-929_d18e.pdf2024-11-121h 07Free Speech PressFacebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank (23-980) 11/06/24Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated BankDocket Number: 23-980Date Argued: 11/06/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-980_k536.pdf
2024-11-061h 43Free Speech PressE.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (23-217) 11/05/24E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. CarreraDocket Number: 23-217Date Argued: 11/05/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-217_1bn2.pdf
2024-11-0542 minFree Speech PressAdvocate Christ Medical v. Becerra, Sec. of H&HS (23-715) 11/05/24Advocate Christ Medical v. Becerra, Sec. of H&HSDocket Number: 23-715Date Argued: 11/05/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-715_onkq.pdf
2024-11-051h 10Free Speech PressWisconsin Bell, Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. Heath (23-1127) 11/04/24Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. U.S., ex rel. HeathDocket Number: 23-1127Date Argued: 11/04/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at:
23-1127
2024-11-041h 33Free Speech PressSan Francisco v. EPA (23-753) 10/16/24San Francisco v. EPADocket Number: 23-753Date Argued: 10/16/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at:
23-753_0861.pdf (supremecourt.gov)
2024-10-161h 37Free Speech PressBufkin v. McDonough, Sec. of VA (23-713) 10/16/24Bufkin v. McDonough, Sec. of VADocket Number: 23-713Date Argued: 10/16/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at
23-713_1971.pdf (supremecourt.gov)
2024-10-161h 12Free Speech PressBouarfa v. Mayorkas, Sec. of Homeland Security (23-583) 10/15/24Bouarfa v. Mayorkas, Sec. of Homeland SecurityDocket Number: 23-583Date Argued: 10/15/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-583_9p6b.pdf2024-10-1649 minFree Speech PressMedical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn (23-365) 10/15/24Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. HornDocket Number: 23-365Date Argued: 10/15/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-365_2co3.pdf2024-10-161h 08Free Speech PressGlossip v. Oklahoma (22-7466) 10/09/24Glossip v. OklahomaDocket Number: 22-7466Date Argued:10/09/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/22-7466_m6hn.pdf2024-10-091h 43Free Speech PressLackey v. Stinnie (23-621) 10/08/24Lackey v. StinnieDocket Number: 23-621Date Argued:10/08/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-621_pok0.pdf2024-10-081h 17
Free Speech PressRoyal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger (23-677) 10/07/24Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. WullschlegerDocket Number: 23-677Date Argued:10/07/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-677_c0nd.pdf2024-10-081h 05Free Speech PressGarland, Att'y Gen. v. VanDerStok (23-852) 10/08/24Garland, Att'y Gen. v. VanDerStokDocket Number: 23-852Date Argued:10/08/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-852_o759.pdf2024-10-081h 16
Free Speech PressWilliams v. Washington Docket (23-191) 10/07/24Williams v. WashingtonDocket Number: 23-191Date Argued:10/07/24
You can view the transcript to this United States Supreme Court case at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/23-191_o759.pdf2024-10-081h 15