Bond v. United States
Whether Congress can enact legislation in areas normally reserved to the states in order to implement a valid treaty.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Chadbourne & Parke LLP v. Troice
Whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) precludes a state-law class action alleging fraud and misrepresentation in a Ponzi scheme.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Metrish v. Lancaster
(1) Whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to abolish a criminal defendant's right to raise diminished capacity as a mitigating defense was “unexpected and indefensible” such that it could not be constitutionally applied retroactively to Respondent's past conduct; and (2) whether the retroactive application of that decision was so lacking in justification that Respondent is entitled to habeas relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Habeas Corpus
Proskauer Rose LLP v. Troice
Whether the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) precludes private class actions where the alleged securities transaction is “more than tangentially related” to the “heart, crux or gravamen” of the alleged fraud.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Univ. Texas Southwestern Med. v. Nassar
Whether Title VII’s retaliation provision and related statutes require plaintiff to prove discrimination was a “but-for cause” for an adverse employment action or merely a “motivating factor” for the action.
Area(s) of Law:- Employment Law
Willis of Colorado Inc. v. Troice
Whether state law class actions suits are precluded under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) because a misrepresentation is “made in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security” where the representation asserts that an uncovered security is backed by safe, liquid, covered securities.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Salinas v. Texas
Whether, or under what conditions, prearrest, pre-Miranda silence is protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Society Int’l, Inc.
Whether §7631(f) of the United States Leadership against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003 (“Leadership Act”), which requires that agencies that receive federal funding to administer foreign HIV and AIDS programs must have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex-trafficking, and endorse the government’s stance on prostitution, violates the First Amendment.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
(1) Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act contains an unstated “market participant” exception that allows a municipal governmental entity to act in conflict with the express preemption clause when the municipal entity does not participate in the market and does not have any interest in the efficient procurement of services; (2) “Whether permitting a municipal governmental entity to bar federally licensed motor carriers from access to a port operates as a partial suspension of the motor carriers' federal registration.”
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Hillman v. Maretta
Whether the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA) preempts Virginia’s omitted spouse statute that allows a third party to recover death benefits from the named beneficiary.
Area(s) of Law:- Preemption
Sekhar v. United States
Whether a government agent’s "recommendation" is intangible property capable of being extorted under the Hobbs Act and 18 U.S.C. §875(d).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
United States v. Kebodeaux
Whether the Sex Offender and Notification Act (SORNA) is constitutional as applied against a person who completed his criminal sentence prior to SORNA's enactment.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
(1) Whether a voluntary adoption initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law may be blocked by the Indian Child Welfare Act when the Indian parent did not have prior custody; and (2) whether ICWA’s definition of "parent" includes a biological father without legal status as a parent under state law.
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Tarrant Regional Water Dist. v. Herrmann
(1) Whether Congress’ ratification of an interstate compact constitutes “expressly stated” or “unmistakably clear” congressional intent to immunize the relevant state laws from dormant Commerce Clause scrutiny; and (2) whether the compact preempts state laws that limit other signatories’ access to the water in question.
Area(s) of Law:- Water Rights
United States v. Davila
Whether the court of appeals erred in finding that a criminal defendant's guilty plea should be vacated when a judicial participation occurs in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), irrespective of individual prejudice to the defendant.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure