Kaley v. United States
Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments entitle criminal defendants to a pre-trial adversarial hearing (in which they may challenge the evidentiary support of the underlying charges) on ex parte restraining orders which limit their ability to retain counsel of choice.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Madigan v. Levin
Whether a state or local employee's claim for age discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is precluded by the Age Discrimination and Employment Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Rights § 1983
U.S. Forest Service v. Pacific Rivers Council
(1) Whether a plaintiff has Article III standing if it failed to establish a specific imminent threatened injury from its contact with the forest area affected by United States Forest Service proposals; (2) whether a plaintiff's claim is ripe if it can still object once it identified a specific injurious project; and (3) whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires the United States Forest Service to analyze all potential environmental effects as soon as reasonably possible.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Walden v. Fiore
(1) Whether knowledge that Plaintiff has connections to the forum State constitute “express aiming” for specific personal jurisdiction; and (2) whether venue is established under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) when the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in a judicial district other than the forum state.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
"Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions."
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
United States v. Woods
“(1) Whether Section 6662 of the Internal Revenue Code, which prescribes a penalty for an underpayment of federal income tax that is “attributable to” an overstatement of basis in property, applies to an underpayment resulting from a determination that a transaction lacks economic substance because the sole purpose of the transaction was to generate a tax loss by artificially inflating the taxpayer’s basis in property. (2) Whether the district court had jurisdiction in this case under 26 U.S.C. §6226 to consider the substantial valuation misstatement penalty.”
Area(s) of Law:- Tax Law