Cases


Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
15-105Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell(1) Whether the availability of a regulatory method for nonprofit religious employers to comply with HHS's contraceptive mandate eliminates either the substantial burden on religious exercise or the violation of RFRA that this Court recognized in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.; (2) whether HHS can satisfy RFRA's demanding test for overriding sincerely held religious objections in circumstances where HHS itself insists that overriding the religious objection will not fulfill HHS's regulatory objective - namely, the provision of no-cost contraceptives to the objector's employees; and (3) whether the First Amendment allows HHS to discriminate among nonprofit religious employers who share the same sincere religious objections to the contraceptive mandate by exempting some religious employers while insisting that others comply. (Opinion by )
15-108Puerto Rico v. Sanchez ValleWhether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Federal Government are separate sovereigns for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution. (Opinion by )
15-233Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free TrustWhether Chapter 9 of the federal Bankruptcy Code, which does not apply to Puerto Rico, nonetheless preempts a Puerto Rico statute creating a mechanism for the Commonwealth's public utilities to restructure their debts. (Opinion by )
15-10Loden v. FisherWhether a capital defendant's decision not to introduce an inadequate mitigation defense at sentencing automatically defeats a claim that counsel's failure to prepare that defense deprived the defendant of his right to effective assistance of counsel. (Opinion by )
14-1504Wittman v. Personhuballah(1) Whether the court below erred in failing to make the required finding that race rather than politics predominated in District 3, where there is no dispute that politics explains the Enacted Plan; (2) whether the court below erred in relieving Plaintiffs of their burden to show an alternative plan that achieves the General Assembly's political goals, is comparably consistent with traditional districting principles, and brings about greater racial balance than the Enacted Plan; (3) whether, regardless of any other error, the court below's finding of a Shaw violation was based on clearly erroneous fact-finding; (4) whether the majority erred in holding that the Enacted Plan fails strict scrutiny because it increased District 3's black voting-age population percentage above the benchmark percentage, when the undisputed evidence establishes that the increase better complies with neutral principles than would reducing the percentage and no racial bloc voting analysis would support a reduction capable of realistically securing Section 5 preclearance. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot
Awards