Home Menu ↓
Supreme Court Case List - Upcoming Arguments and Arguments Not Yet Scheduled

Supreme Court Case List

Upcoming Arguments and Arguments Not Yet Scheduled

Below are listed upcoming Supreme Court cases. Cases scheduled for oral argument, and cases not yet scheduled are presented in separate lists.

Click on the Case Title for further details. Oral argument recordings, if available, may be heard or paused by clicking on the respective play or pause button next to the argument date. Oral argument transcripts may be in either PDF or text format. Link to them by clicking on the or images respectively. PDF documents for available opinions can be viewed by clicking on the image.

Upcoming Oral Arguments Before the United States Supreme Court
#Case TitleDocket No.ArgumentQuestions to be Presented
1GREEN v. DONAHOE14-6132015-11-30Under federal employment discrimination law, does the filing period for a constructive discharge claim begin to run when an employee resigns, as five circuits have held, or at the time of an employer's last allegedly discriminatory act giving rise to the resignation, as three other circuits have held?
2MUSACCHIO v. UNITED STATES14-10952015-11-301. Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine requires the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case to be measured against the elements described in the jury instructions where those instructions, without objection, require the government to prove additional or more stringent elements than do the statute and indictment? 2. Whether a statute-of-limitations defense not raised at or before trial is reviewable on appeal?
3Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States14-5102015-12-01Whether the D.C. Circuit misapplied this Court's Holland decision when it ruled - in direct conflict with a holding of the Federal Circuit on materially similar facts - that the Tribe did not face an "extraordinary circumstance" warranting equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for filing of Indian Self-Determination Act claims under the Contract Disputes Act?
4MERRILL LYNCH v. MANNING14-11322015-12-01Whether Section 27 of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 provides federal jurisdiction over state-Iaw claims seeking to establish liability based on violations of the Act or its regulations or seeking to enforce duties created by the Act or its regulations.
5GOBEILLE v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE14-1812015-12-02Did the Second Circuit - in a 2-1 panel decision that disregarded the considered opinion advanced by the United States as amicus -err in holding that ERISA preempts Vermont's health care database law as applied to the third-party administrator for a self-funded ERISA plan?
6Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians13-14962015-12-07Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?
7Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission14-2322015-12-081. Does the desire to gain partisan advantage for one political party justify intentionally creating over-populated legislative districts that result in tens of thousands of individual voters being denied Equal Protection because their individual votes are devalued, violating the one-person, one-vote principle? 2. Does the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review by the Justice Department permit the creation of legislative districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle? And, even if creating unequal districts to obtain preclearance approval was once justified, is this still a legitimate justification after Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013)? 3. Was the Arizona redistricting commission correct to disregard the majority--minority rule and rely on race and political party affiliation to create Hispanic "influence" districts?
8EVENWEL v. ABBOTT14-9402015-12-08In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), this Court held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes a "one-person, one-vote" principle. This principle requires that, "when members of an elected body are chosen from separate districts, each district must be established on a basis that will insure, as far as is practicable, that equal numbers of voters can vote for proportionally equal numbers of officials." Hadley v. Junior Coll. Dist. Of Metro. Kansas City, Mo., 397 U.S. 50, 56 (1970). In 2013, the Texas Legislature enacted a State Senate map creating districts that, while roughly equal in terms of total population, grossly malapportioned voters. Appellants, who live in Senate districts significantly overpopulated with voters, brought a one-person, one--vote challenge, which the three-judge district court below dismissed for failure to state a claim. The district court held that Appellants' constitutional challenge is a judicially unreviewable political question. The question presented is whether the "one-person, one-vote" principle of the Fourteenth Amendment creates a judicially enforceable right ensuring that the districting process does not deny voters an equal vote.
9FISHER v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN14-9812015-12-09Whether the Fifth Circuit's re-endorsement of the University of Texas at Austin's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions decisions can be sustained under this Court's decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013).

The cases listed below have not yet been scheduled for argument.

Upcoming Cases Before the United States Supreme Court, Not Yet Scheduled for Argument
#Case TitleDocket No.CertiorariQuestions to be PresentedTerm
1Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association14-9152015-10-211. Whether Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U.S. 209 (1977), should be overruled and public-sector "agency shop" arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment. 2. Whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.2015
2NAZARIAN v. PPL ENERGYPLUS14-6142015-10-191. When a seller offers to build generation and sell wholesale power on a fixed rate contract basis, does the FPA field-preempt a state order directing retail utilities to enter into the contract? 2. Does FERC's acceptance of an annual regional capacity auction preempt states from requiring retail utilities to contract at fixed rates with sellers who are willing to commit to sell into the auction on a long-term basis?2015
3CPV MARYLAND v. PPL ENERGYPLUS14-6232015-10-192015
5STRYKER CORPORATION v. ZIMMER14-15202015-10-191. Has the Federal Circuit improperly abrogated the plain meaning of 35 U.S.C. $ 284 by forbidding any award of enhanced damages unless there is a finding of willfulness under a rigid, two-part test, when this Court recently rejected an analogous framework imposed on 35 U.S.C. $ 285, the statute providing for attorneys' fee awards in exceptional cases? 2. Does a district court have discretion under 35 U.S.C. $ 284 to award enhanced damages where an infringer intentionally copied a direct competitor's patented invention, knew the invention was covered by multiple patents, and made no attempt to avoid infringing the patents on that invention?2015
6BANK MARKAZI v. PETERSON14-7702015-10-01Whether $8772 - a statute that effectively directs a particular result in a single pending case - violates the separation of powers.2015
7STURGEON v. MASICA14-12092015-10-012015
8UTAH v. STRIEFF14-13732015-10-012015
10NEBRASKA v. PARKER14-14062015-10-012015
12DUNCAN v. OWENS14-15162015-10-012015
13TAYLOR v. UNITED STATES14-61662015-10-012015
14MOLINA-MARTINEZ v. UNITED STATES14-89132015-10-012015
15PUERTO RICO v. SANCHEZ VALLE15-1082015-10-012015
16RJR NABISCO v. EUROPEAN COMMUNITY15-1382015-10-012015
17WILLIAMS v. PENNSYLVANIA15-50402015-10-01Are the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments violated by the participation of a potentially biased jurist on a multimember tribunal deciding a capital case, regardless of whether his vote is ultimately decisive?2015
18Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt14-11752015-06-301. Whether the federal discretionary-function immunity rule, 28 U.S.C. $2680(a), is categorically inapplicable to intentional torts and bad-faith conduct. 2. Whether Nevada may refuse to extend to sister States haled into Nevada courts the same immunities Nevada enjoys in those courts. 3. Whether Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into the courts of another State without its consent, should be overruled.2015
19KINGDOMWARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. UNITED STATES14-9162015-06-22Whether the Federal Circuit erred in construing 38 U.S.C. $ 8127(d)'s mandatory set-aside restricting competition for Department of Veterans Affairs' contracts to veteran-owned small businesses as discretionary.2015
20HEFFERNAN v. CITY OF PATERSON14-12800000-00-002015
21ZUBIK v. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS14-14180000-00-002015
22PRIESTS FOR LIFE v. DEPT. OF H&HS14-14530000-00-002015
24E. TX BAPTIST UNIVERSITY v. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS15-3530000-00-002015
25LITTLE SISTERS v. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS15-10540000-00-002015
27GENEVA COLLEGE v. BURWELL, SEC. OF H&HS15-19110000-00-002015
28VOISINE v. UNITED STATES14-101540000-00-002015
29SIMMONS v. HIMMELREICH15-1090000-00-002015
30HUSKY ELECTRONICS v. RITZ15-1450000-00-002015
31NICHOLS v. UNITED STATES15-52380000-00-002015
Themify WordPress Themes