| 25-243 |
Allen v. Caster |
(1) Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires Alabama to create a new majority-Black district; (2) Whether creating a new majority-Black district would violate the 14th or 15th Amendments; and (3) Whether Section 2 creates a privately enforceable right |
| 25-89 |
Lee v. Poudre School District R-1 |
Whether a school district may discard the presumption
that fit parents act in the best interests of their children
and arrogate to itself the right to direct the care, custody,
and control of their children. |
| 25-75 |
Crocs v. Double Diamond Distribution, Ltd. |
Whether the Lanham Act’s prohibition on “misrepresent[ations]” as to “nature, characteristics, [or] qualities”
extends to misrepresentations about the product’s intangible properties, like its patent status. |
| 25-51 |
Klein v. Martin |
Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit violated the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act’s
deferential standard by overturning a state-court
decision based on the supposed lack of “nuance” and
“exhaustiveness” in the court’s written opinion,
rather than the reasonableness of its legal conclusion. |
| 25-4 |
Marshall v. Cook |
Whether diversity jurisdiction may be created by
having one diverse co-trustee bring the lawsuit,
strategically excluding all nondiverse co-trustees as
parties, or instead the citizenship of the nondiverse, nonparty co-trustees must be counted because they all
are “real parties to the controversy” by virtue of their
equally shared powers to hold and manage trust property and to sue and be sued in their own names—which here would destroy diversity. |
| 24-1324 |
SAP SE v. Teradata Corporation |
(1) Whether the rule of reason properly governs tying
claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act
concerning software products that are technologically integrated—including when, as here, the tied product is
sold separately from the tying product; and (2) whether the court’s precedents applying a per se
rule to analyze the lawfulness of tying arrangements under Section 1 should be overruled. |
| 24-1268 |
Reed v. Goertz |
Whether Article 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, as
authoritatively construed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, violates due
process by arbitrarily denying prisoners access to
postconviction DNA testing, rendering illusory prisoners’ state-created right to prove their innocence
through newly discovered evidence. |
| 24-1266 |
Jump Trading, LLC v. Patterson |
Whether, when an arbitration agreement contains a provision
delegating to the arbitrator gateway questions of
arbitrability, a court must leave for the arbitrator to
decide the issue of whether a nonsignatory to that
agreement can compel a signatory to arbitrate a
dispute between them. |
| 24-1261 |
Cambridge Christian School v. Florida High School Athletic Association |
(1) Whether Santa Fe Independent School
District v. Doe compels a finding of government speech where two
private Christian schools sought to engage
in communal prayer over a loudspeaker
before a football game organized by a
state athletic association that otherwise
permitted a wide array of private speech
over the loudspeaker, and should therefore
be overruled in light of this court’s later
holdings; and (2) whether the endorsement factor of the
government-speech doctrine revives the “endorsement test offshoot” of Lemon v. Kurtzman that
“this Court long ago abandoned,” by providing a special veto
for a private party’s religious speech on any
government owned platform. |
| 24-1221 |
Neese v. Kennedy |
Whether the court should summarily vacate the court of
appeals’ judgment under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., and remand
with instructions to dismiss the case. |
| 24-1215 |
Miniso Depot CA v Liu |
Whether claims within the scope of an arbitration
agreement that are unrelated to sexual assault or sexual harassment should continue to be arbitrated under the
Federal Arbitration Act. |
| 24-1202 |
Doe v. Grindr Inc. |
(1) Whether Section 230(c)(1) of the Communications
Decency Act immunizes apps from liability for
their own conduct in marketing and designing
defective products and without providing sufficient warnings; (2) whether the following activities traditional publishing
functions that justify dismissal on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion under Section 230: (a) determining who is offered access to an app, (b) extracting unpublished location data from users, or (c) algorithmically recommending nearby
strangers to one another for in-person encounters; and (3) whether a sex hookup app is not liable for trafficking
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1591 or 18 U.S.C. § 1595 even if it
knowingly profits from intentionally marketing
to children and recommending them to nearby
adults for sex. |
| 24-1168 |
M.D. v. Abbott |
(1) Whether civil contempt sanctions imposed
through proceedings that undisputedly
comported with civil due process may be
affirmed even if the contempt order
seemingly also imposed punitive sanctions; (2) whether the defense of “substantial
compliance” involves more than a
mathematical inquiry and instead requires
alleged civil contemnors to show they took
“all reasonable steps” to comply with the
clear intent of pertinent court orders; and (3) whether a court of appeals should consider
whether opinions expressed by a district
judge were properly formed during the course
of litigation and should give significant
weight to the resulting waste and duplication
of judicial effort before taking the
extraordinary step of removing a diligent
district judge from a complex case. |
| 24-1161 |
RunItOneTime LLC v. U.S. |
Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 requires dismissal of Administrative Procedure Act suits
challenging federal agency action whenever a nonparty who benefited from that action asserts sovereign immunity. |
| 24-1159 |
Pitts v. Mississippi |
Whether the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the
use of a screen at trial that blocks a child witness’s
view of the defendant, without any individualized
finding by the trial court that the screen is necessary
to prevent trauma to the child. |
| 24-1145 |
Live Nation Entm't v. Heckman |
(1) Whether the Federal Arbitration Act protects all arbitration
agreements or only a subset of traditional, bilateral
arbitration agreements that the act’s drafters
specifically envisioned; and (2) whether the FAA preempts California’s
severability doctrine because it specifically targets
and disproportionately invalidates arbitration
agreements. |
| 24-1107 |
Peoples v. Cook County, Illinois |
Whether the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution provides the sort of
explicit textual source of constitutional protection for
overdetention such that the Eighth Amendment, not
substantive due process, must be the exclusive guide for
analyzing claims of unconstitutional overdetention. |
| 24-1099 |
Smith v. Scott |
(1) Whether, viewing the facts from the officers’ perspective
at the time, the officers acted reasonably
under the Fourth Amendment by using
bodyweight pressure to restrain a potentially
armed and actively resisting individual only
until handcuffing could be accomplished; and (2) whether the panel erred in denying qualified immunity
where no case clearly established that pre-handcuffing bodyweight pressure violates the
Fourth Amendment. |
| 24-1095 |
Koetter v. Manistee County Treasurer |
(1) Whether the government violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment or
takings clause of the 5th Amendment by denying just compensation
to property owners who miss a narrow and
premature window to preserve their right to
just compensation; and (2) whether, to the extent it authorizes Michigan’s
confiscatory claim statute, the Supreme Court should
overrule Nelson v. City of New York. |
| 24-1093 |
Mumford v. Iowa |
Whether a dog sniff of the interior of a lawfully
stopped vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution absent
consent to the sniff or probable cause to believe that the
vehicle contains illegal drugs. |
| 24-1092 |
Mungo Homes, LLC v. Huskins |
Whether the South Carolina Supreme Court erred
in applying a severability rule that disfavors arbitration
and by creating a state-specific public policy defense
to arbitration that conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act, such that
enforcement of arbitration agreements in the state now
turns on whether enforcement is sought in state or federal
court. |
| 24-1084 |
Hohn v. U.S. |
Whether a prosecutor’s intentional, unjustified intrusion into a defendant’s attorney-client communications violates the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution without a showing of discrete, trial-specific prejudice. |
| 24-1078 |
Beck v. U.S. |
(1) Whether Feres v. United
States’s bar against
a servicemember’s ability to bring tort claims
“incident to service” is only triggered when the injury
was directly caused by the servicemember’s military
duties or orders; and (2) whether the court should limit or
overrule Feres because its limitation on
servicemembers has no basis in the Federal Tort Claims Act's text and
is unworkable. |
| 24-1073 |
Maxwell v. U.S. |
Whether, under Santobello v. New York and common principles of contract
interpretation, promise on behalf of the
“United States” or the “Government” that is made by a
U.S. Attorney in one district binds federal
prosecutors in other districts. |
| 24-1063 |
Hunter v. U.S. |
(1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance
of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to
appeal and the government does not object. |
| 24-1061 |
Project Veritas v. Vasquez |
(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred by holding that Oregon’s
prohibition of unannounced recordings – which expressly
exempts recordings of police activity and discussions
during certain felonies – is content-neutral and thus subject only to intermediate scrutiny; and (2) whether, even if Oregon’s law is content-neutral, it fails
intermediate scrutiny because it restricts unannounced
audio recording in wholly public settings where privacy
interests are minimal or nonexistent. |
| 24-1050 |
Estate of Te’Juan Johnson v. Rakes |
(1) Whether a theory of liability under the
14th Amendment to the Constitution based on “state-created danger” is incompatible with the
purpose of the due process clause of that Amendment “to
protect the people from the State, not to
ensure that the State protect[s] them from
each other"; (2) whether, if a theory of liability under the 14th
Amendment based on “state-created danger” exists consistent with the purpose
of the due process clause, a police
officer who misrepresents to an individual
that a threatening person will be confined
thereby assumes an affirmative constitutional
duty to protect that individual from harm; and (3) whether a police officer who misrepresents
to an individual that a threatening person will
be confined is entitled to qualified immunity
in the absence of clearly established law
that he thereby assumed an affirmative
obligation under the due process clause to
protect that individual from harm. |
| 24-1027 |
Invenergy Thermal LLC v. Sixkiller |
(1) Whether the court’s decision in General Motors
Corp. v. Tracy immunizes
state laws affecting utilities from challenge under
the dormant commerce clause, even when those
laws affect competitive markets; and (2) whether alleging interstate and market-wide consequences of a state law, including a protectionist effect, adequately alleges a burden on interstate
commerce. |
| 24-1022 |
Hutson v. U.S. |
Whether a state or local official who moves to terminate prospective relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(b)(1)(A) bears any affirmative burden beyond demonstrating that the requisite amount of time has passed. |
| 24-1015 |
Does 1-2 v. Hochul |
(1) Whether compliance with state laws directly
contrary to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964’s requirement to provide a
reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs may
serve as an undue hardship justifying an employer’s
noncompliance with Title VII; and (2) whether a state law that requires employers to deny without any consideration all requests by
employees for a religious accommodation, contrary to
Title VII’s religious nondiscrimination provision, is
preempted by Title VII and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. |
| 24-1001 |
Cotter Corporation v. Mazzocchio |
Whether federal nuclear safety regulations preempt
state tort standards of care in public liability actions. |
| 24-994 |
National Basketball Association v. Salazar |
(1) Whether a consumer claiming that he was
harmed by disclosure of his personal information
must plead that his information was revealed to the
public to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution, or instead the consumer need only plead that his information was disclosed to any third party without his
consent; and (2) whether the Video Privacy Protection Act bars a business from disclosing information about consumers who do not
subscribe to its audiovisual goods or services. |
| 24-969 |
Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau |
Whether, in order to obtain judicial relief, a party
challenging governmental action taken by an
individual who remained in office against the
president’s wishes due to an unconstitutional
removal restriction must show that a hypothetical
replacement officer would have taken a different
action. |
| 24-948 |
Guerrero v. Redd |
Whether, under United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., a court of appeals’ decision
should be vacated because the appeal became moot by
happenstance while a petition for rehearing was pending, or instead can be left in place because further review is discretionary. |
| 24-935 |
Flower Foods v. Brock |
Whether workers who deliver locally goods that travel
in interstate commerce — but who do not transport the
goods across borders nor interact with vehicles that
cross borders — are “transportation workers” “engaged in
foreign or interstate commerce” for purposes of the exemption in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. |
| 24-796 |
Missouri v. U.S. |
(1) Whether federal courts can second-guess a state"s "reason" for exercising 10th Amendment authority; (2) whether the federal Constitution prohibits states from exercising 10th Amendment authority when motivated
by a concern that a federal statute is unconstitutional; and (3) whether a state official is a proper defendant under Ex parte Young simply because the official is regulated by
a statute, or instead the official also needs to possess authority to enforce the challenged law. |