2024-2025 Granted Cases

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra (No. 23-715) 

Issue(s): Whether the phrase “entitled … to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (No. 23-583)

Issue: Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of non discretionary criteria.

Bufkin v. McDonough (No. 23-713)

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule. 

City and County of San Francisco v. EPA (No. 23-753) 

Issue: Whether the Clean Water Act allow the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform. 

Delligatti v. United States (No. 23-825)

Issue: Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force. 

Dewberry Group Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc. (No. 23-900)

Issue: Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera (No.23-217)

Issue: Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank (No. 23-980)

Issue(s): Whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm; and  whether FRCP Rule 8 or Rule 9(b) supplies the proper pleading standard for loss causation in a private securities-fraud action.

Feliciano v. Department of Transportation (No.23-861)

Issue: 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

Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC (No.23-1038)

Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious.

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton (No.23-1122)

Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech.

Garland v. VanDerStok (No. 23-852)

Issue(s): The ATF sought to extend its regulatory authority over privately made firearms, by (1) proposing a definition of “firearms” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) that would include weapons parts kits, and (2) proposing a definition of “frame and receiver” under the GCA that would include partially incomplete frames and receivers.  These proposed definitions would facilitate ATF regulation and prohibitions on “ghost guns.”  Gun manufacturers and sellers challenged the ATF rule.

Glossip v. Oklahoma (No.22-7466)

Issue(s): 

  • May Oklahoma carry out the execution of Richard Glossip in light of the prosecutorial misconduct and other errors that affected his conviction and sentencing? 
  •  Whether the state’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’ admission that he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’ false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law under Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois. 
  • Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. 
  •  Whether due process of law requires reversal where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the state no longer seeks to defend it. 
  •  Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment
  • Supreme Court to Hear Case of Oklahoma Death Row Inmate - New York Times (Adam Liptak)

Hewitt v. United States, 23-1002; Duffey v. United States (No.23-1150)

Issue: Whether the 2018 First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment

Kousisis v. United States, (No. 23-909)

Issue(s):  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 compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and  whether all contract rights are “property.” 

Lackey v. Stinnie (No.23-621)

Issue: Whether a party that receives a preliminary injunction is considered the “prevailing party” for the purposes of awarding attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), when there is no final ruling on the merits of the claim.  Under Sole v. Wyner, 551 U.S. 74 (2007), most courts of appeals generally agree that a preliminary injunction can sometimes entitle a party to attorney fees, but there is significantly more disagreement over when. Does a party prevail “on the merits” when a court grants a preliminary injunction based only on a prediction of “likely” success? And second, does a party prevail when the relief from this preliminary injunction becomes “enduring” only because some later, nonjudicial act moots the case?

Medical Marijuana v. Horn (No.23-365)

Issue: Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB (No.23-970)

Issue(s): Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents; and whether plaintiffs can satisfy the Act's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.

Republic of Hungary v. Simon (No. 23-867)

Issue(s): Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and  whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger (No. 23-677)

Issue(s): Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (No. 23-975)

Issue: 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.

Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, (No.23-997)

Issue: 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.

United States v. Miller (No.23-824)

Issue: 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.

Velazquez v. Garland (No. 23-929)

Issue: Whether, when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).

Williams v. Washington (No. 23-191)

Issue: Does a Section 1983 claim brought in state court require the plaintiffs to first exhaust state administrative remedies? 

Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath (No. 22-1515)

Issue: Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.