Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
17-343Convergex Group, LLC v. FletcherWhether a participant in a defined-benefit ERISA plan may claim “representational” standing and rely on only his plan's injuries to satisfy article III's standing requirement, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit has held; or whether the participant must establish his own article III standing to proceed, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 9th Circuits have held. (Opinion by )
17-326Johnson v. Virginia(1) Whether Miller v. Alabama applies to a sentence of life in prison imposed on a juvenile whose only opportunity for release from prison is Virginia's geriatric-release program; and (2) whether, when a juvenile faces a sentence equal to or exceeding his natural life, the sentencing court must conduct an individualized inquiry, including receiving expert testimony, to determine whether the defendant is the rare juvenile offender who should be treated as permanently incorrigible. (Opinion by )
17-467Kisela v. Hughes(1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Kisela, the police officer who found Amy Hughes walking down her driveway toward another woman while carrying a large kitchen knife, acted unreasonably when he shot and wounded Amy Hughes after she ignored commands to drop the knife given Kisela's well-founded belief that potentially lethal force was necessary to protect the other woman from an attack that could have serious or deadly consequences; and (2) whether the lower court erred—to the point of warranting summary reversal—in refusing qualified immunity in the absence of any precedent finding a Fourth Amendment violation based on similar facts and, indeed, ignoring a case with remarkably similar facts that found no constitutional violation. (Opinion by )
17-464Connecticut v. BaccalaWhether a defendant's conviction must be set aside under the fighting words doctrine of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, where the Connecticut Supreme Court recognized a “store manager” exception to the doctrine, thereby paving the way for the removal of verbal epithets from the doctrine's scope and deepening the conflict among the lower and state courts over the existence of the “police” exception and other similar exceptions. (Opinion by )
17-463Kansas v. National Indian Gaming CommissionWhether the National Indian Gaming Commission's legal opinions that determine whether Indian lands are eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act are reviewable final agency actions. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot