U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violates the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U.S. Constitution.

A case in which the Court will decide whether an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or instead is a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was previously acquitted.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the "serious drug offense" definition in the Armed Career Criminal Act incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense or the federal drug schedules that were in effect at the time of the prior state drug offense.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a veteran who has served two separate and distinct periods of qualifying service is entitled to receive all of the education benefits at once from programs associated with both periods of service.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the civil-liability provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act unequivocally and unambiguously waive the sovereign immunity of the United States.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action only if the official used the account to perform a governmental duty or under the authority of his or her office.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public.

A case in which the Court will decide what test a district court must apply when determining whether and when a post-deprivation hearing is required under the Due Process Clause.

A case in which the Court will decide whether South Carolina’s congressional redistricting plan constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, a whistleblower must prove his employer acted with a “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief to succeed on a retaliation claim.

A case in which the Court will decide whether, under federal admiralty law, a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract can be rendered unenforceable if enforcement is contrary to the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a civil rights “tester” has Article III standing to challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act a hotel’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unconstitutional.

A case in which the Court will clarify what qualifies a defendant for prison sentence below the statutory minimum under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) as amended by the First Step Act of 2018.

A case in which the Court held that taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

A case in which the Court held that a foreign plaintiff with no alleged connection to the United States can state a cognizable claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act if the circumstances surrounding the injury indicate it arose in the United States.

A case in which the Court held that a party need not reassert in a post-trial motion a purely legal issue rejected at summary judgment in order to preserve it for appeal.