Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
14-232Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission(1) Whether the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justifies intentionally creating over-populated legislative districts that results in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the one-person, one-vote principle; and (2) whether the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permits the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle, and, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, whether this is still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder. (Opinion by )
14-1175Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt(1) Whether the federal discretionary-function immunity rule, 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a), is categorically inapplicable to intentional torts and bad-faith conduct; (2) whether Nevada may refuse to extend to sister States haled into Nevada courts the same immunities Nevada enjoys in those courts; and (3) whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into the courts of another State without its consent, should be overruled. (Opinion by )
14-1225Falcon Express International, Inc. v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.Whether common-law fraud claims are preempted by the Americans with Disabilities Act or by the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 in the absence of a determination that such claims expressly reference air or motor carriers’ rates, routes, or services, or that entertaining such claims would have a significant economic effect on such rates, routes, or services. (Opinion by )
14-1132Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. ManningWhether Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provides federal jurisdiction over state-law claims seeking to establish liability based on violations of the Act or its regulations or seeking to enforce duties created by the Act or its regulations. (Opinion by )
14-1085Ford Motor Co. v. United States1. Whether the Sixth Circuit improperly held petitioner to a heightened burden in construing the substantive interest provision of 26 U.S.C. § 6611; and (2) whether the Sixth Circuit improperly frustrated petitioner's right to rely on the Internal Revenue Service’s own published guidance materials. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot