Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
15-1442The Gillette Co. v. California Franchise Tax BoardWhether the Multistate Tax Compact, a multistate agreement that addresses significant aspects of the state taxation of multistate businesses, has the status of a contract that binds its signatory States. (Opinion by )
16-149Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc. v. Nevils(1) Whether the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act (“FEHBA”) preempts state laws that prevent carriers from seeking subrogation or reimbursement pursuant to their FEHBA contracts; and (2) whether FEHBA's express-preemption provision, 5 U.S.C. § 8902(m)(1), which expressly “preempt[s] any State or local law” that would prevent enforcement of “the terms of any contract” between the Office of Personnel Management and a carrier which “relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits)[,]” violates the Supremacy Clause. (Opinion by )
16-142Honeycutt v. United StatesWhether 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1) mandates joint and several liability among co-conspirators for forfeiture of the reasonably foreseeable proceeds of a drug conspiracy. (Opinion by )
16-95J & K Admin. Mgmt. Services, Inc. v. RobinsonWhether an arbitration clause that does not expressly address the availability of class or collective arbitration is sufficient to defer the question of the availability of class or collective arbitration to an arbitrator to decide. (Opinion by )
15-1539Kaley v. United States(1) Whether, where an acquitted defendant contested multiple elements of the offense, was acquitted by a general verdict, and can demonstrate that the evidence of a particular element was constitutionally insufficient, the Double Jeopardy Clause collaterally estops the government from prosecuting the defendant for another offense that also requires proof of that particular element; and (2) where an acquitted defendant contested multiple elements of the offense, what burden of proof must he shoulder to establish that a particular element was “necessarily decided” in his favor for purposes of collateral estoppel. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot