Source: http://m.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2017/
Timestamp: 2018-02-18 03:21:10
Document Index: 477378859

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 158', '§ 157', '§ 2', '§ 1350', '§ 318', '§ 20507', '§ 973', '§ 1259', '§ 213', '§ 2510', '§ 3553', '§ 3582', '§ 271', '§ 3663', '§ 3231', '§ 3582', '§ 1', '§ 3553']

Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, No. 16-300 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the collective-bargaining provisions of the National Labor Relations Act prohibit the enforcement under the Federal Arbitration Act of an agreement requiring an employee to arbitrate claims against an employer on an individual, rather than collective, basis.
National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, No. 16-307 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether arbitration agreements with individual employees that bar them from pursuing work-related claims on a collective or class basis in any forum are prohibited as an unfair labor practice under 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), because they limit the employees' right under the National Labor Relations Act to engage in “concerted activities” in pursuit of their “mutual aid or protection,” 29 U.S.C. § 157, and are therefore unenforceable under the savings clause of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 2.
Sessions v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, No. 16-285 [Arg: 10.02.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether an agreement that requires an employer and an employee to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration, and waive class and collective proceedings, is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act, notwithstanding the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act.
Gill v. Whitford, No. 16-1161 [Arg: 10.03.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204 [Arg: 10.03.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Class v. U.S., No. 16-424 [Arg: 10.04.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499 [Arg: 10.11.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, categorically forecloses corporate liability.
Wilson v. Sellers, No. 16-6855 [Arg: 10.30.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the court's decision in Harrington v. Richter silently abrogates the presumption set forth in Ylst v. Nunnemaker – that a federal court sitting in habeas proceedings should “look through” a summary state court ruling to review the last reasoned decision – as a slim majority of the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit held in this case, despite the agreement of both parties that the Ylst presumption should continue to apply.
Ayestas v. Davis, No. 16-6795 [Arg: 10.30.2017 Trans./Aud.]
U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, No. 15-1509 [Arg: 10.31.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the appropriate standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status is the de novo standard of review applied by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 3rd, 7th and 10th Circuits, or the clearly erroneous standard of review adopted for the first time by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in this action.
Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784 [Arg: 11.6.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the safe harbor of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits avoidance of a transfer made by or to a financial institution, without regard to whether the institution has a beneficial interest in the property transferred, consistent with decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 8th, and 10th Circuits, but contrary to the decisions from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 7th and 11th Circuits.
Patchak v. Zinke, No. 16-498 [Arg: 11.7.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a statute directing the federal courts to “promptly dismiss” a pending lawsuit following substantive determinations by the courts (including this court's determination that the “suit may proceed”) – without amending the underlying substantive or procedural laws – violates the Constitution's separation of powers principles.
Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, No. 16-712 [Arg: 11.27.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether inter partes review, an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents, violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article III forum without a jury.
SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal, No. 16-969 [Arg: 11.27.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), which provides that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in an inter partes review “shall issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of any patent claim challenged by the petitioner,” requires that Board to issue a final written decision as to every claim challenged by the petitioner, or whether it allows that Board to issue a final written decision with respect to the patentability of only some of the patent claims challenged by the petitioner, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held.
Cyan v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439 [Arg: 11.28.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether state courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over covered class actions that allege only Securities Act of 1933 claims. CVSG: 05/23/2017.
Digital Realty Trust v. Somers, No. 16-1276 [Arg: 11.28.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the anti-retaliation provision for “whistleblowers” in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 extends to individuals who have not reported alleged misconduct to the Securities and Exchange Commission and thus fall outside the act’s definition of “whistleblower.”
Carpenter v. U.S., No. 16-402 [Arg: 11.29.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Christie v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476 [Arg: 12.4.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Rubin v. Islamic Republic of Iran, No. 16-534 [Arg: 12.4.2017 Trans./Aud.]
New Jersey Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-477 [Arg: 12.4.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111 [Arg: 12.5.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Marinello v. U.S., No. 16-1144 [Arg: 12.6.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Murphy v. Smith, No. 16-1067 [Arg: 12.6.2017 Trans./Aud.]
Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado, No. 22o141 [Arg: 1.8.2018 Trans.]
Issue(s): Whether New Mexico is in violation of the Rio Grande Compact and the Rio Grande Project Act, which apportion water to Rio Grande Project beneficiaries.
Florida v. Georgia, No. 22o142 [Arg: 1.8.2018 Trans.]
Byrd v. U.S., No. 16-1371 [Arg: 1.9.2018 Trans.]
Collins v. Virginia, No. 16-1027 [Arg: 1.9.2018 Trans.]
Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, No. 16-980 [Arg: 1.10.2018 Trans.]
Issue(s): Whether 52 U.S.C. § 20507 permits Ohio's list-maintenance process, which uses a registered voter's voter inactivity as a reason to send a confirmation notice to that voter under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.
Dalmazzi v. U.S., No. 16-961 [Arg: 1.16.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Cox v. U.S., No. 16-1017 [Arg: 1.16.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Ortiz v. U.S., No. 16-1423 [Arg: 1.16.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether Judge Martin T. Mitchell's service on the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review disqualified him from continuing to serve on the U.S. Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals under 10 U.S.C. § 973(b)(2)(A)(ii); (2) whether Judge Mitchell's simultaneous service on both the CMCR and the AFCCA violated the appointments clause; and (3) whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review Dalmazzi v. United States and Cox v. United States under 28 U.S.C. § 1259(3).
Hall v. Hall, No. 16-1150 [Arg: 1.16.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the clarity Gelboim v. Bank of America gave to multidistrict cases should be extended to single district consolidated cases, so that the entry of a final judgment in only one case triggers the appeal-clock for that case.
McCoy v. Louisiana, No. 16-8255 [Arg: 1.17.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 16-1362 [Arg: 1.17.2018 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether service advisors at car dealerships are exempt under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A) from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime-pay requirements.
City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt, No. 16-1495 [Arg: 2.20.2018]
Currier v. Virginia, No. 16-1348 [Arg: 2.20.2018]
Issue(s): Whether a defendant who consents to severance of multiple charges into sequential trials loses his right under the double jeopardy clause to the issue-preclusive effect of an acquittal.
Dahda v. U.S., No. 17-43 [Arg: 2.21.2018]
Issue(s): Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge's territorial jurisdiction.
Rosales-Mireles v. U.S., No. 16-9493 [Arg: 2.21.2018]
Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466 [Arg: 2.26.2018]
Issue(s): Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454 [Arg: 2.26.2018]
Issue(s): Whether, under the “rule of reason,” the government's showing that American Express' anti-steering provisions stifle price competition on the merchant side of the credit-card platform suffices to prove anti-competitive effects and thereby shifts to American Express the burden of establishing any pro-competitive benefits from the provisions.
U.S. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 17-2 [Arg: 2.27.2018]
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, No. 17-21 [Arg: 2.27.2018]
Issue(s): Whether the existence of probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim as a matter of law.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, No. 16-1435 [Arg: 2.28.2018]
Issue(s): Whether Minnesota statute Section 211B.11, which broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place, is facially overbroad under the First Amendment.
Sveen v. Melin, No. 16-1432 [Arg: 3.19.18]
Issue(s): Whether the application of a revocation-upon-divorce statute to a contract signed before the statute's enactment violates the contracts clause.
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, No. 16-1140 [Arg: 3.20.18]
Issue(s): Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment, applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment.
China Agritech v. Resh, No. 17-432 [Arg: 3.26.18]
Issue(s): Whether the rule of American Pipe and Construction Co. v. Utah tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.
U.S. v. Sanchez-Gomez, No. 17-312 [Arg: 3.26.18]
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in asserting authority to review respondents' interlocutory challenge to pretrial physical restraints and in ruling on that challenge notwithstanding its recognition that respondents' individual claims were moot.
Hughes v. U.S., No. 17-155 [Arg: 3.27.18]
Issue(s): Whether, as a four-justice plurality in Freeman v. United States concluded, a defendant who enters into a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is generally eligible for a sentence reduction if there is a later, retroactive amendment to the relevant Sentencing Guidelines range.
Koons v. U.S., No. 17-5716 [Arg: 3.27.18]
Issue(s): Whether a defendant who is subject to a statutory mandatory minimum sentence, but who substantially assisted the government and received a sentence below the mandatory minimum pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), is eligible for a further sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), when the Sentencing Commission retroactively lowers the advisory sentencing guidelines range that would have applied in the absence of the statutory mandatory minimum.
Benisek v. Lamone, No. 17-333 [Arg: 3.28.18]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court erred in holding that, to establish an actual, concrete injury in a First Amendment retaliation challenge to a partisan gerrymander, a plaintiff must prove that the gerrymander has dictated and will continue to dictate the outcome of every election held in the district under the gerrymandered map; (2) whether the majority erred in holding that the Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle burden-shifting framework is inapplicable to First Amendment retaliation challenges to partisan gerrymanders; and (3) whether, regardless of the applicable legal standards, the majority erred in holding that the present record does not permit a finding that the 2011 gerrymander was a but-for cause of the Democratic victories in the district in 2012, 2014, or 2016.
Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. Tesla Energy Operations, No. 17-368 [Arg: 3.19.2018]
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe v. Lundgren, No. 17-387 [Arg: 3.21.2018]
Issue(s): Whether a court's exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcomes the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it.
Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases in which patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f). CVSG: 12/06/2017.
Issue(s): Whether (and, if so, when) a statement concerning a specific asset can be a “statement respecting the debtor's ... financial condition” within Section 523(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. CVSG: 11/09/2017.
Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., No. 16-1220
Issue(s): Whether a court may exercise independent review of an appearing foreign sovereign's interpretation of its domestic law (as held by the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 5th, 6th, 7th, 11th and District of Columbia Circuits), or whether a court is “bound to defer” to a foreign government's legal statement, as a matter of international comity, whenever the foreign government appears before the court (as held by the opinion below in accord with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit).
Lagos v. U.S., No. 16-1519
Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4) covers costs for reimbursement under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act that were “neither required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim's own purposes and unprompted by any official government action.
Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 17-130
Issue(s): Whether administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are officers of the United States within the meaning of the appointments clause.
Washington v. U.S., No. 17-269
Issue(s): Whether, to trigger the stop-time rule by serving a “notice to appear,” the government must “specify” the items listed in the definition of a “notice to appear,” including “[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held.”
South Dakota v. Wayfair, No. 17-494
Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court should abrogate Quill Corp. v. North Dakota's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement.
Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. U.S., No. 17-530
Issue(s): Whether stock that a railroad transfers to its employees is taxable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(1).
Abbott v. Perez, No. 17-586
Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw state congressional districts unless the governor called a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map within three days; (2) whether the Texas legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted a redistricting plan originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect; (3) whether the Texas legislature engaged in intentional vote dilution when it adopted Congressional District 27 in 2013 after the district court found, in 2012, that CD27 did not support a plausible claim of racially discriminatory purpose and did not dilute Hispanic voting strength because it was not possible to create an additional Hispanic opportunity district in the region; and (4) whether the Texas legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering in Congressional District 35 when it simply adopted the district unchanged as part of the court-ordered remedial plan.
Abbott v. Perez, No. 17-626
Issue(s): (1) Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw Texas House of Representatives districts unless the governor called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas House map within three business days; (2) whether the Texas legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted Texas House of Representatives districts originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect; (3) whether any of the invalidated districts that were unchanged from the 2012 court-imposed remedial plan to the 2013 legislatively adopted plan (in Bell, Dallas and Nueces Counties) are unlawful, when the district court in 2012 issued an opinion explaining why these districts were lawful; and (4) whether the Texas Legislature had a strong basis in evidence to believe that consideration of race to maintain a Hispanic voter-registration majority was necessary in House District 90 in Tarrant County, when one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit told the legislature it had to keep the district’s population above 50 percent Spanish-surnamed-voter registration to avoid diluting Hispanic voting strength.
Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965
Issue(s): (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Chavez-Meza v. U.S., No. 17-5639
Issue(s): Whether, when a district court decides not to grant a proportional sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), it must provide some explanation for its decision when the reasons are not otherwise apparent from the record, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 6th, 8th, 9th and 11th Circuits have held, or whether it can issue its decision without any explanation so long as it is issued on a preprinted form order containing the boilerplate language providing that the court has “tak[en] into account the policy statement set forth in 18 U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable,” as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th, 5th and 10th Circuits have held.
Leidos v. Indiana Public Retirement System, No. 16-581