The following is a complete list of cases to be heard by the Supreme Court this term:

Docket No. 23-191 – WILLIAMS V. WASHINGTON

• Court: Alabama Supreme Court
• Cert. Granted: 1/12/24
• Argument Date: 10/7/24 – audio & transcript
• Oral Advocates: Mr. Adam G. Unikowsky & Mr. Edmund G. LaCour Jr.
• Q: Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.

Docket No. 23-677 – ROYAL CANIN U.S.A., INC. V. WULLSCHLEGER

• Court: Eighth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 4/29/24
• Argument Date: 10/7/24 – audio & transcript
• Oral Advocates: Ms. Katherine B. Wellington & Mr. Ashley Keller
• Q 1: Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint defeats federal-question subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Q 2: Whether such a post-removal amendment of the complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Docket No. 23-621 – LACKEY V. STINNIE

• Court: Fourth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 4/22/24
• Argument Date: 10/8/24 – audio & transcript
• Oral Advocates: Gen. Elizabeth B. Prelogar & Mr. Peter A. Patterson
• Q 1: Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Q 2: Whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties’ legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

Docket No. 23-852 – GARLAND, ATT’Y GEN. V. VANDERSTOK

• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 4/22/24
• Argument Date: 10/8/24 – audio & transcript
• Oral Advocates: Ms. Erika L. Maley, Mr. Anthony A. Yang, & Mr. Brian D. Schmalzbach
• Q 1: Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive,” 27 C.F.R. 478.11, is a “firearm” regulated by the Act.
• Q 2: Whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily by completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver,” 27 C.F.R. 478.12(c), is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the Act.

Docket No. 22-7466 – GLOSSIP V. OKLAHOMA

• Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
• Cert. Granted: 1/22/24
• Argument Date: 10/9/24 – audio & transcript
• Oral Advocates: Mr. Seth P. Waxman, Mr. Paul D. Clement, & Mr. Christopher G. Michel
• Q 1a: Whether the State’s suppression of the key prosecution witness’s admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness’s false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959).
• Q 1b: Whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).
• Q 2: Whether due process of law requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it. See Escobar v. Texas, 143 S. Ct. 557 (2023) (mem.).
• Q 3: Whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment.

Docket No. 23-365 – MEDICAL MARIJUANA, INC. V. HORN

• Court: Second Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 4/29/24
• Argument Date: 10/15/24
• Q: Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of civil RICO.

Docket No. 23-583 – BOUARFA V. MAYORKAS, SEC. OF HOMELAND

• Court: Eleventh Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 4/29/24
• Argument Date: 10/15/24
• Q: Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria.

Docket No. 23-713 – BUFKIN, JOSHUA E. V. McDONOUGH, SEC. OF VA

• Court: Federal Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 4/29/24
• Argument Date: 10/16/24
• Q: Must the Veterans Court ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the Veterans Court to “take due account” of VA’s application of that rule?

Docket No. 23-753 – SAN FRANCISCO V. EPA

• Court: USCA-9
• Cert. Granted: 5/28/24
• Argument Date: 10/16/24
• Q: Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in NPDES permits that subject permitholders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.

Docket No. 23-217 – E.M.D. SALES, INC. V. CARRERA

• Court: Fourth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/17/24
• Argument Date: 11/5/24
• Q: Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of an FLSA exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence-as six circuits hold-or clear and convincing evidence, as the Fourth Circuit alone holds.

Docket No. 23-477 – UNITED STATES V. SKRMETTI

• Court: Sixth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/24/24
• Q: Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-33-103(a)(1), violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Docket No. 23-715 – ADVOCATE CHRIST MEDICAL V. BECERRA, SEC. OF H&HS

• Court: DC Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/10/24
• Argument Date: 11/5/24
• Q: Does the phrase “entitled … to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, mean the same thing for Medicare part A and SSI, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

Docket No. 23-824 – UNITED STATES V. MILLER

• Court: Tenth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/24/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under Section 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy.

Docket No. 23-825 – DELLIGATTI V. UNITED STATES

• Court: Second Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/3/24
• Argument Date: 11/12/24
• Q: Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.

Docket No. 23-861 – FELICIANO V. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

• Court: Federal Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/24/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency.

Docket No. 23-867 – HUNGARY V. SIMON

• Court: DC Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/24/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q 1: Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
• Q 2: Whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference.
• Q 3: Whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Docket No. 23-900 – DEWBERRY GROUP, INC. V. DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC.

• Court: Fourth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/24/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates.

Docket No. 23-909 – KOUSISIS V. UNITED STATES

• Court: Third Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/17/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q 1: Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme.
• Q 2: Whether a sovereign’s statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services.
• Q 3: Whether all contract rights are “property.”

Docket No. 23-929 – MONSALVO VELAZQUEZ V. GARLAND, ATT’Y GEN.

• Court: Tenth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 7/2/24
• Argument Date: 11/12/24
• Q: When a noncitizen’s voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart?

Docket No. 23-970 – NVIDIA CORP. V. E. OHMAN J:OR FONDER AB

• Court: Ninth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/17/24
• Argument Date: 11/13/24
• Q 1: Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the PSLRA based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents.
• Q 2: Whether plaintiffs can satisfy the PSLRA’s falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.

Docket No. 23-975 – SEVEN COUNTY INFRASTRUCTURE COALITION V. EAGLE COUNTY

• Court: DC Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/24/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority.

Docket No. 23-980 – FACEBOOK, INC. V. AMALGAMATED BANK

• Court: Ninth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/10/24
• Argument Date: 11/6/24
• Q 1: Are risk disclosures false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm?
• Q 2: Does Federal Rule 8 or Rule 9(b) supply the proper pleading standard for loss causation in a private securities-fraud action?

Docket No. 23-997 – STANLEY V. CITY OF SANFORD

• Court: Eleventh Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/24/24
• Q: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, does a former employee-who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed-lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?

Docket Nos. 23-1002 – HEWITT V. UNITED STATES & 23-1150 – DUFFEY V. UNITED STATES

• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 7/2/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the FSA’s enactment when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the FSA’s enactment.

Docket No. 23-1038 – FDA V. WAGES AND WHITE LION INVESTMENTS, L.L.C.

• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 7/2/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside FDA’s denial orders as arbitrary and capricious.

Docket No. 23-1122 – FREE SPEECH COALITION V. PAXTON

• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 7/2/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done.

Docket No. 23-1127 – WISCONSIN BELL, INC. V. UNITED STATES, EX REL. HEATH

• Court: Seventh Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 6/17/24
• Argument Date: 11/4/24
• Q: Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

Docket No. 23-971 – WAETZIG V. HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES

• Court: Tenth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a “final judgment, order or proceeding” under Rule 60(b).

Docket No. 23-1007 – CUNNINGHAM V. CORNELL UNIV.

• Court: Second Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether a plaintiff can state a claim by alleging that a plan fiduciary engaged in a transaction constituting a furnishing of goods, services, or facilities between the plan and a party in interest, as proscribed by 29 U.S.C. § 1106(a)(1)(C), or whether a plaintiff must plead and prove additional elements and facts not contained in the provision’s text.

Docket No. 23-1039 – AMES V. OH DEPT. OF YOUTH SERVICES

• Court: Sixth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of Title VII, a majority-group plaintiff must show “background circumstances to support the suspicion that the defendant is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”

Docket No. 23-1095 – THOMPSON V. UNITED STATES

• Court: Seventh Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a “false statement” for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.

Docket No. 23-1141 – SMITH & WESSON BRANDS V. ESTADOS UNIDOS MEXICANOS

• Court: First Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q1: Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States is the “proximate cause” of alleged injuries to the Mexican government stemming from violence committed by drug cartels in Mexico.
• Q2: Whether the production and sale of firearms in the United States amounts to “aiding and abetting” illegal firearms trafficking because firearms companies allegedly know that some of their products are unlawfully trafficked.

Docket No. 23-1187 – FDA V. R.J. REYNOLDS VAPOR CO.

• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the D.C. Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit.

Docket Nos. 23-1201 – CC/DEVAS LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD. & 24-17 – DEVAS MULTIMEDIA PRIVATE LTD. V. ANTRIX CORP. LTD.

• Court: Ninth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether plaintiffs must prove minimum contacts before federal courts may assert personal jurisdiction over foreign states sued under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

Docket No. 23-1226 – McLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOC. V. McKESSON CORP.

• Court: Ninth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether the Hobbs Act required the district court in this case to accept the FCC’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Docket No. 23-1239 – BARNES V. FELIX

• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether courts should apply the moment of the threat doctrine when evaluating an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment.

Docket No. 23-1259 – BLOM BANK SAL V. HONICKMAN

• Court: Second Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Whether Rule 60(b)(6)’s stringent standard applies to a post-judgment request to vacate for the purpose of filing an amended complaint.

Docket No. 23-1300 – NRC V. TEXAS & 23-1312 – INTERIM STORAGE PARTNERS, LLC V. TEXAS

• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q1: Whether the Hobbs Act, 28 U.S.C. 2341 et seq., which authorizes a “party aggrieved” by an agency’s “final order” to petition for review in a court of appeals, 28 U.S.C. 2344, allows nonparties to obtain review of claims asserting that an agency order exceeds the agency’s statutory authority.
• Q2: Whether the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq., and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., permit the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license private entities to temporarily store spent nuclear fuel away from the nuclear reactor sites where the spent fuel was generated.

Docket No. 23-1324 – PERTTU V. RICHARDS

• Court: Sixth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: In cases subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, do prisoners have a right to a jury trial concerning their exhaustion of administrative remedies where disputed facts regarding exhaustion are intertwined with the underlying merits of their claim?

Docket No. 23-7809 – GUTIERREZ V. SAENZ

• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Cert. Granted: 10/4/24
• Argument Date: not yet set
• Q: Does Article III standing require a particularized determination of whether a specific state official will redress the plaintiff’s injury by following a favorable declaratory judgment?