Petitions We’re Watching

View Petitions by Category.

Petitions We're Watching
Docket Case Page Issue(s)
17-659 All Nippon Airways v. Wortman (1) Whether the filed-rate doctrine—which the Supreme Court firmly established in Keogh v. Chicago & Northwest Railway Co. and reaffirmed in Square D Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc.—still applies where rates are filed with a federal agency pursuant to a statutory regulatory scheme (as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, and 7th Circuits), or whether it no longer applies to such rates if a court finds the agency lacks sufficient “practical ability” to regulate those rates (as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit below); and (2) whether, and to what extent, the filed-rate doctrine applies where a federal agency retains regulatory authority over rates, but chooses to exercise that authority by establishing a regulatory system, which it periodically revisits and revises, that does not require each rate to be literally filed with the agency.
17-500 American Cable Association v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission has statutory authority under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to impose common-carrier regulation on Internet access service; and (2) whether the FCC's order below was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or undertaken without observance of the procedures required by law.
17-204 Apple v. Pepper Whether consumers may sue anyone who delivers goods to them for antitrust damages, even where they seek damages based on prices set by third parties who would be the immediate victims of the alleged offense.
17-781 Asboth v. Wisconsin Whether standardized criteria must guide police discretion to seize a vehicle without a warrant or probable cause after its operator has been taken into police custody.
17-499 AT&T v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission has statutory authority to reclassify fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service as a “telecommunications service” subject to common carrier regulation; and (2) whether the FCC has statutory authority to reclassify mobile broadband Internet access service as a “commercial mobile service” subject to common carrier regulation.
17-719 Bauer v. Becerra Whether the exercise of a constitutional right may be conditioned on the payment of a special fee used to fund general law enforcement activities bearing no relation to the fee-payer's own conduct.
17-498 Berninger v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission's assumption of gatekeeper power over new methods of communication, “in the most important place [] for the exchange of views. . . the ‘vast democratic forums of the Internet,’” violates the First Amendment; (2) whether the radical reinterpretation of the Communications Act of 1934 by the FCC is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Counsel, Inc., and, if so, whether that deference violates Article I, § 1 of the Constitution; and (3) whether the FCC has statutory authority to promulgate the Open Internet Order, vastly expanding regulation of the Internet, in light of the policy enacted by Congress “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services [defined as services that provide access to the Internet], unfettered by Federal or State regulation,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2).
17-736 Blatt, Hasenmiller, Leibsker & Moore, LLC v. Oliva (1) Whether good faith reliance on controlling circuit precedent, prior to any retroactive change in that law, is an unintentional “bona fide error” and a procedure “reasonably adapted to avoid error” within the meaning of the “bona fide error” defense in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692k(c); and (2) whether the due process clause prohibits punishment for conduct that was lawful when committed, but later prohibited by a retroactive change of law.
16-1180 Brewer v. Arizona Dream Act Coalition (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in creating an immigration-specific rule under which state police power regulations that “arrang[e]” federal immigration classifications are pre-empted, even if pre-emption was not “the clear and manifest purpose of Congress”; and (2) whether the 9th Circuit erred in assuming that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, an executive-branch policy of non-enforcement, was valid “federal law” capable of pre-empting a state police power regulation.
17-887 Brown v. Brown Whether the Indiana procedure which allows trial-counsel Strickland v. Washington claims on direct appeal in one of two ways–defendants may assert the claims in their brief on direct appeal if they choose to make no further record in support of their claims or, if they wish to develop a record, defendants may suspend their direct appeal while they develop the factual record in the trial court–satisfies the Martinez-Trevino doctrine, which allows a federal habeas court to hear a substantial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel if a state denies a meaningful opportunity to raise the claim on direct appeal.
17-900 Crane Co. v. Poage (1) Whether the due process clause requires appellate review that considers factors undermining the reasonableness of the punitive damages award; and (2) whether the due process clause prohibits a punitive damages award that is more than ten times a substantial compensatory damages award against a defendant who faces multiple suits arising from a single course of conduct.
17-501 CTIA-The Wireless Association v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission unlawfully reclassified broadband Internet access service as a “telecommunications service” under 47 U.S.C. § 153; and (2) whether the FCC unlawfully reclassified mobile broadband Internet access service as a “commercial mobile service” under 47 U.S.C. § 332.
17-773 Culbertson v. Berryhill Whether fees subject to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b)’s 25-percent cap related to the representation of individuals claiming Social Security benefits include, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 9th, and 10th Circuits hold, only fees for representation in court or, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th, and 11th Circuits hold, also fees for representation before the agency.
17-913 D. T. v. W. G. Whether the 14th Amendment gives adoptive parents the same right as biological parents to direct the upbringing of their children.
17-202 Daleidan v. National Abortion Federation Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred by its unprecedented holding, in conflict with decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd and 4th Circuits, and the consistent teachings of the Supreme Court, that the First Amendment permits issuance of an injunction restraining the release of information of undisputed and legitimate public interest; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's application of the “abuse of discretion” standard on appeal in a case involving restrictions on First Amendment rights merits summary reversal.
17-869 Davenport v. City of Sandy Springs, Georgia Whether the mootness of claims for prospective relief renders federal courts powerless to decide a claim for nominal damages.
17-419 Dawson v. Steager Whether the Supreme Court's precedent and the doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity bar states from exempting groups of state retirees from state income tax while discriminating against similarly situated federal retirees based on the source of their retirement income.
16-1189 E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Smiley (1) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act prohibits an employer from using compensation paid to employees for non-compensable, bona fide meal breaks that it included in their regular rate of pay as a credit against compensation owed for work time; and (2) whether an agency's interpretation of a statute advanced for the first time in litigation is entitled to Skidmore v. Swift & Co. deference.
17-804 EVE-USA v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (1) Whether, and under what circumstances, assignors and their privies are free to contest a patent's validity; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that proof of but-for causation, without more, satisfies the requirement that damages be apportioned between patented and un-patented features.
17-571 Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Whether the “registration of [a] copyright claim has been made” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, deposit, and fee to the Copyright Office, as the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the 5th and 9th Circuits have held, or only once the Copyright Office acts on that application, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 10th and, in the decision below, the 11th Circuits have held.
17-637 FTS USA, LLC v. Monroe (1) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act and the due process clause permit a collective action to be certified and tried to verdict based on testimony from a small subset of putative plaintiffs without either any statistical or other similarly reliable showing that the experiences of those who testified are typical and can be reliably be extrapolated to the entire class, or a jury finding that the testifying witnesses are representative of the absent plaintiffs; and (2) whether the procedure for determining damages upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in which the district court unilaterally determined damages without any jury finding, violates the Seventh Amendment.
17-936 Gilead Sciences v. U.S. ex rel. Campie Whether a False Claims Act allegation fails when the government continued to approve and to pay for products after learning of alleged regulatory infractions and the pleadings offer no basis for overcoming the strong inference of immateriality that arises from the government's response.
17-696 Gonzalez-Badillo v. U.S. Whether, upon obtaining general consent to search a bag or other area, law enforcement may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, “pry open” or otherwise cause intentional damages to personal property found within that might reasonably hold the object of the search.
17-818 Huertas v. U.S. Whether an individual can “submit” to an assertion of police authority—and thus become seized within the meaning of the Supreme Court's fourth amendment precedents—by complying temporarily before fleeing.
17-770 ICTSI Oregon v. Int'l Longshore and Warehouse Union Whether a claim that parties to a collective bargaining agreement have violated the antitrust laws by conspiring to seize work controlled by employers outside the bargaining unit through coercion that violates the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(4)(B) and 158(e), is barred as a matter of law by application of the nonstatutory labor exemption.
17-749 Johnson v. Stinson Whether Johnson v. Jones precludes a federal appellate court from exercising jurisdiction over a challenge to a denial of qualified immunity that turns not upon disputed facts, but upon the disputed application of the inferences drawn by the district court from the facts, in concluding that a reasonable jury could find a violation of a constitutional right which was clearly established; and (2) whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, sitting en banc, applied an impermissibly broad reading of Johnson v. Jones in vacating the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit's three-judge panel and denying jurisdiction over Dr. Lowell T. Johnson's appeal, where the appeal sought review of the district court's determination that a reasonable jury could find that Dr. Johnson violated respondent's right to due process.
17-834 Kansas v. Garcia (1) Whether the Immigration Reform and Control Act expressly pre-empts the states from using any information entered on or appended to a federal Form I-9, including common information such as name, date of birth, and social security number, in a prosecution of any person (citizen or alien) when that same, commonly used information also appears in non-IRCA documents, such as state tax forms, leases, and credit applications; and (2) if IRCA bars the states from using all such information for any purpose, whether Congress has the constitutional power to so broadly pre-empt the states from exercising their traditional police powers to prosecute state law crimes.
17-301 Kenosha Unified School District No. 1 Board of Education v. Whitaker (1) Whether a school policy requiring boys and girls to use separate bathroom facilities that correspond to their biological sex is sex stereotyping that constitutes discrimination “based on sex” in violation of Title IX; and (2) whether a school policy requiring boys and girls to use separate bathroom facilities that correspond to their biological sex is a sex-based classification triggering heightened scrutiny under an Equal Protection analysis.
17-904 Loudoun County, Virginia v. Dulles Duty Free, LLC (1) Whether the validity under the import-export clause of a non-discriminatory local business license tax calculated on the basis of gross receipts should be evaluated using the Supreme Court's approach in Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages or in Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board of Equalization; and (2) whether a local business license tax calculated based on gross receipts, which does not specifically target imports or exports, violates the import-export clause if some of the gross receipts include export sales.
17-862 Maricopa County, Arizona v. Villa Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which states that “the principal prosecuting attorney” of a state or locality may apply for an order authorizing the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, 18 U.S.C. § 2516(2), allows a principal prosecuting attorney to delegate the task of applying for such an order to a subordinate.
17-878 McLaughlin v. McLaughlin Whether the Arizona Supreme Court erred when it held that a biology-based paternity statute violates the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court's decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith.
17-537 Mercury Casualty Company v. Jones Whether the Fifth and 14th Amendments permit a state to fix the rates charged by a regulated entity at a level that precludes a fair rate of return on the regulated entity's capital.
17-502 NCTA- The Internet and Television Association v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether it was arbitrary and capricious for the Federal Communications Commission to reverse long-standing policy without identifying and substantiating any actual changed circumstances or accounting for broadband providers’ massive reliance interests; (2) whether the FCC violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to give adequate notice of key aspects of the final order; and (3) whether the FCC exceeded its statutory authorization by reclassifying broadband as a “telecommunications service.”
17-772 Nicholson v. Thrifty Payless Whether a debtor who has inadvertently failed to disclose the existence of a potential claim in a bankruptcy petition should be estopped from litigating that claim because she is attributed a presumption of deceit where she had knowledge of the facts that gave rise to the undisclosed claim without regard to her subjective intent.
17-972 Nordyke v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Atlantic Marine Construction Corp. v. United States District Court supplants the traditional transfer of venue analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) where some, but not all, parties to a litigation have agreed to a forum-selection clause.
17-779 Parker v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility Whether the “three strikes” provision of the federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), bars a prisoner from appealing in forma pauperis a district court dismissal constituting a third strike.
17-664 Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras v. Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited (1) Whether the legal standard to invoke Basic Inc. v. Levinson's presumption of reliance at minimum requires empirical evidence that a security generally reacted in a directionally appropriate manner to new material information—that its price went up on good news and down on bad news—or, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit ruled, whether the presumption can be based on other factors entirely unrelated to whether the alleged misstatement had price impact notwithstanding the Supreme Court's holding in Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. (Halliburton II); and (2) whether, contrary to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit's ruling below, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process require that class membership be ascertainable through administratively feasible means.
17-667 Pioneer Centres Holding Company Stock Ownership Plan and Its Trustees v. Alerus Financial, N.A. Whether a plaintiff bears the full burden of establishing loss causation under 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a), which allows an employee plan to recover for “any losses to the plan resulting from [a fiduciary's] breach of its duties” under ERISA, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits have held, or whether the burden shifts to the fiduciary to establish the absence of loss causation once the beneficiary makes a prima facie case by establishing breach of fiduciary duty and associated loss, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 8th Circuits have held.
17-935 Planned Parenthood of Arkansas & Eastern Oklahoma v. Jegley Whether the undue burden test established in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey entitles a court to preliminarily enjoin a state abortion law—which mandates a “contracted physician” with hospital admitting privileges that effectively bans medication abortion, offers no discernible medical benefit, and leaves only one remaining abortion provider hundreds of miles away from significant population centers—without making a concrete estimate of the number of women who would be prevented or postponed in having an abortion.
17-778 Quarles v. U.S. Whether Taylor v. United States’ definition of generic burglary requires proof that intent to commit a crime was present at the time of unlawful entry or first unlawful remaining, as two circuits hold; or whether it is enough that the defendant formed the intent to commit a crime at any time while “remaining in” the building or structure, as the court below and three other circuits hold.
17-942 R. K. B. v. E. T. Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.
16-1094 Republic of Sudan v. Harrison Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit erred by holding – in direct conflict with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia, 5th and 7th Circuits and in the face of an amicus brief from the United States – that plaintiffs suing a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act may serve the foreign state under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) by mail addressed and dispatched to the head of the foreign state's ministry of foreign affairs “via” or in “care of” the foreign state's diplomatic mission in the United States, despite U.S. obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to preserve mission inviolability.
17-565 Rowan County, North Carolina v. Lund Whether legislative prayer delivered by legislators comports with the Supreme Court's decisions in Town of Greece v. Galloway and Marsh v. Chambers as the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has held, or does not, as the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has held.
17-342 Silvester v. Becerra (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit improperly applied lenient scrutiny in a Second Amendment challenge to the application of California's full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers who pass their background check in fewer than 10 days and already own another firearm or have a concealed carry license; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory powers to cabin the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit's concerted resistance to and disregard of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decisions.
16-1071 Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation Organization Whether the Fifth Amendment's due process clause precludes federal courts from exercising personal jurisdiction in this suit by American victims of terrorist attacks abroad carried out by the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization.
17-540 Starr Int'l Company v. U.S. Whether a private party with Article III standing may be barred from asserting constitutional claims for money damages against the federal government because of the equitable doctrine of “third-party prudential standing.”
17-670 Stone v. Montana Whether the Fifth Amendment's protection from double jeopardy attaches when the court accepts a defendant's guilty plea.
17-503 TechFreedom v. Federal Communications Commission (1) Whether the Federal Communications Commission's Order imposing common carrier status upon broadband providers constitutes a major rule of vast “economic and political significance,” requiring Congress to “speak clearly” if it wishes to delegate the matter to an agency's interpretive discretion, when the Order will affect (i) every American Internet service provider, which collectively invest over $78 billion in network investments annually as of 2014; (ii) every Internet content provider, an industry that currently includes the five largest companies in the United States by market capitalization; and (iii) every Internet consumer, currently totaling over 275 million Americans; and, if so, whether Congress expressly authorized the FCC to issue the major rule, when (i) Congress enacted Telecommunications Act of 1996, upon which the FCC relies, with the express purpose of ensuring “the Internet and other interactive computer services,” remain “unfettered by Federal or State regulation,” 47 U.S.C. § 230(b)(2); and (ii) the FCC concedes that “the Communications Act did not clearly resolve the issue of how broadband should be classified”; and (2) whether the FCC's reinterpretation of the term “public switched network” to include IP enabled services is, by virtue of implicating additional services, a minor or major question.
17-982 Teixeira v. Alameda County, California (1) Whether, when Second Amendment claims are suitable for means-ends scrutiny, courts must apply some form of heightened scrutiny, or might rational-basis review suffice; and (2) whether the Second Amendment secures a right to sell firearms.
17-747 Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Wendell (1) Whether the two-part standard of reviewing expert-admissibility rulings employed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, along with the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd and 7th Circuits, improperly empowers these courts to reverse district court decisions to exclude evidence without “the deference that is the hallmark of abuse-of-discretion review"; and (2) whether an expert's qualifications and mere invocation of a scientific methodology can be sufficient to require admission of his testimony, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded, or whether Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires that a witness, no matter how qualified, must also satisfy the court that his methodology was “reliably applied to the facts of the case,” as several other circuits have held.
17-975 Total Gas & Power North America v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Whether forcing an entity to defend claims for civil liability and penalties in an ultra vires agency proceeding, when “exclusive jurisdiction” of those claims lies in federal district court, presents a ripe case or controversy under Article III and the Declaratory Judgment Act as to the proper forum for adjudication.
17-830 Trent v. U.S. Whether the exclusion of testimony on the specific length of the mandatory minimum sentence faced by a cooperating witness violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examination.
17-950 Ulbricht v. U.S. (1) Whether the warrantless seizure of an individual’s internet traffic information without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment; and (2) whether the Sixth Amendment permits judges to find the facts necessary to support an otherwise unreasonable sentence.
17-504 U.S. Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission Whether the Federal Communications Commission lacked the clear congressional authorization required to assert plenary authority over a large and growing segment of the economy by imposing public-utility, common-carrier obligations on broadband Internet access service.
17-651 U.S. v. Jackson Whether the definition of the term “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague.
17-766 U.S. v. Sims Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
17-765 U.S. v. Stitt Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as “burglary” under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).
16-1275 Virginia Uranium v. Warren Whether the Atomic Energy Act pre-empts a state law that on its face regulates an activity within its jurisdiction (here uranium mining), but has the purpose and effect of regulating the radiological safety hazards of activities entrusted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (here, the milling of uranium and the management of the resulting tailings).
17-951 Vitol S.A. v. Autoridad de Energia Electrica de Puerto Rico Whether the rule espoused in Steel Company v. Citizens for a Better Environment, which held that a federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a dispute without first determining that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter, is limited to Article III jurisdictional disputes, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit and other circuits have held, or whether it applies to statutory as well as Article III jurisdictional disputes, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit and other circuits have held.
17-618 Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. Department of Homeland Security (1) Whether, under the Equal Access to Justice Act, prevailing party status on appeal is separate and distinct from prevailing party status in the entire litigation; (2) whether separate claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking the identical remedy are distinct in all respects for fee purposes; and (3) whether a district court may raise objections to a fee request sua sponte, without giving the party making the request an opportunity to respond.
16-1498 Washington Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Whether the Yakama Treaty of 1855 creates a right for tribal members to avoid state taxes on off-reservation commercial activities that make use of public highways.
17-952 Wyoming v. Sam Whether, when a juvenile is sentenced for murder and other violent crimes, the Eighth Amendment limits a judge to sentencing the juvenile to an aggregate term of years that allows a meaningful opportunity for release even though none of the separate sentences are cruel and unusual.