Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

This week we are hosting a symposium on Christie v. NCAA, a challenge to the federal sports-betting ban. Contributions are available at this link.

Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
17-99Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority – East v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC(1) Whether the “substantial[ity]” and “federal-state balance” requirements of Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Manufacturing are satisfied whenever a federal law standard is referenced to inform the standard of care in a state-law cause of action, so long as the parties dispute whether federal law embodies the asserted standard; and (2) whether a federal court applying Grable to a case removed from state court must accept a colorable, purely state-law claim as sufficient to establish that the case does not “necessarily raise” a federal issue, even if the court believes the state court would ultimately reject the purely state-law basis for the claim on its merits. (Opinion by )
17-97United States v. JenkinsWhether the definition of the term “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague. (Opinion by )
17-94Stagg P.C. v. Department of State(1) Whether the lower courts erred in refusing to address whether Stagg was likely to succeed on the merits of its First Amendment claims when evaluating Stagg's request for a preliminary injunction; and (2) whether the lower courts err in denying a preliminary injunction solely because they deferred to the government's assertion that the licensing scheme was necessary for national security, regardless of its unconstitutionality. (Opinion by )
17-95S. S. v. Colorado River Indian Tribes(1) Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1912(d) and 1912(f), applies in a private severance action initiated by one birth parent against the other birth parent of an Indian child; and (2) whether, if the sections apply in such an action, this de jure discrimination and separate-and-substandard treatment of Indian children violate the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Opinion by )
17-67City of Fresno, California v. Willis(1) Whether the law is clearly established that a suspect reaching for a nearby gun does not present an immediate threat, justifying the use of deadly force, unless and until the suspect's hand is within inches of that gun; and (2) whether, where a jury awards only nominal damages on a claim brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but awards substantial damages on a pendent state law claim, a district court, in ruling on a motion for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, can evaluate the degree of success achieved in the litigation by considering the damages awarded on the state law claim, even if the state law claim involves injuries suffered by different parties than the person whose constitutional rights were at issue in the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards