Editor's Note :

close editor's note Editor's Note :

There is a possibility of opinions on Thursday at 10 a.m. We will begin live-blogging at 9 a.m. at this link, where readers can also sign up for an email reminder when we start the live blog.
Our statistics page presents the data on each sitting – the cases (14 remain undecided) and the majority-opinion authors.

Breaking News :

Breaking News :

Briefly Mentioned :

Briefly Noted :

The federal government has asked the Supreme Court to block nationwide injunction in sanctuary-cities case that bars the government from imposing conditions on federal grants for police; government argues injunction should only apply to Chicago.


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
17-1584Bartelt v. WisconsinWhether a non-custodial interrogation at a police station becomes custodial once the defendant confesses to a serious crime because at that point a reasonable person would know that he is not free to leave. (Opinion by )
17-1645Bombardier Recreational Products Inc. v. Arctic Cat Inc.Whether a finding of willful infringement based on In re Seagate’s “should have been known” negligence standard violates the requirement that subjective willfulness must be “intentional or knowing,” as set forth by the Supreme Court in Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.. (Opinion by )
17-1636California Sea Urchin Commission v. Combs(1) Whether statutory silence, when a statute neither authorizes nor forbids an agency action, triggers Chevron deference; and (2) whether, if statutory silences triggers Chevron deference, an agency’s interpretation is reasonable when the interpretation is not based on any statutory text but instead on the absence of relevant text. (Opinion by )
17-1627Lee v. Clinard(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s holding that the state court’s prejudice determination constituted an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington contravened the Supreme Court’s precedents instructing that federal habeas review of ineffective-assistance claims must be “doubly deferential”; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s decision to allow the federal district court to conduct a new transfer hearing on remand, instead of first allowing the state court an opportunity to remedy the alleged constitutional violation, conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedents. (Opinion by )
17-1625Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.Whether the Copyright Act’s allowance of “full costs,” 17 U.S.C. § 505, to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 11th Circuits have held, or whether the Act also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot