Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the extent to which the 14^th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause applies to gender-affirming healthcare for transgender minors. Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibits medical treatments intended to alleviate gender dysphoria or initiate gender transition for minors. The United States argues that the Bill violates the Equal Protection Clause by withholding medical care on the basis of a patient’s sex, or alternatively, that the Bill discriminates against a quasi-suspect classification: transgender status. Skrmetti contends that the Bill applies equally to Tennessee youth regardless of gender, that it is not motivated by discriminatory intent, and that transgender status does not meet the quasi-suspect class characteristics of being discrete, insular, immutable, and politically powerless. The case will have powerful implications for future state policies regarding healthcare and transgender care, especially for minors, in the continuing social and political conflict over LGBTQ+ rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine whether the expropriation exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is satisfied when a claimant’s assets were seized and liquidated into funds that were “commingled” with the nation’s general assets, and the nation’s general assets were then used for commercial purposes within the United States. Hungary argues that commingled assets do not satisfy the expropriation exception because there is insufficient evidence to establish that the funds from the liquidated assets were directly used in a commercial capacity in the present day. The Simon survivors counter that commingled assets do satisfy the expropriation exception and that there is sufficient evidence that the funds from their seized property were later used for commercial purposes within the United States. This case touches on important questions regarding the role of American courts in international disputes, the Holocaust’s legacy, and human rights violations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether § 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code allows a trustee to avoid a transfer to the government when the government could not have been directly sued under nonbankruptcy law. Section 106 abrogates sovereign immunity in certain bankruptcy claims, including § 544(b). Section 544 states that a trustee “may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor… that is voidable under applicable law,” which typically invokes state laws that fall outside of the purview of bankruptcy law. The Government argues that § 106 should be read narrowly, and that sovereign immunity is not waived when the actual creditor could not pursue an avoidance claim under the applicable state law due to sovereign immunity. Miller counters that the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 106 extends to the applicable law referenced in § 544. The outcome of this case has serious implications for the powers of trustees in bankruptcy cases and the power of the United States to waive sovereign immunity.  

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) denial of Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C.’s (“White Lion”) application to market flavored e-cigarette products was arbitrary and capricious. White Lion submitted an application to the FDA to sell their flavored nicotine liquid, used in e-cigarettes, on the market. The FDA denied their application, claiming that White Lion did not include sufficient scientific study support in their application for the FDA to conclude that the benefits of the flavored nicotine liquid outweighed the risk of use by youth. White Lion claims that the FDA erroneously rejected their application for approval of their flavored nicotine liquid because they lacked a longitudinal comparative study, a requirement that White Lion claims was not communicated to the public. The FDA counters by claiming that longitudinal studies are not required and that White Lion’s application was rejected because they could not show that e-cigarette use reduced smoking. The outcome of this case has significant implications for youth e-cigarette use, public health, state budget stability, and product investment and innovation in the e-cigarette industry.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine when a noncitizen has failed to voluntarily depart in a timely manner or move to reopen or reconsider an adverse decision under the 60-day voluntary departure period provided for in 8 U.S.C. 1229c. Petitioners argue that the common law has established a rule that extends deadlines when the last day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, and that this rule is presumptively incorporated into the voluntary-departure statute because it was not expressly negated by Congress. Respondent counters that the common law rule only applies to judicial actions not private actions, only extends to judicial deadlines not statutory deadlines, and is not incorporated into the statute. This case raises significant questions of precisely when a noncitizen subject to removal must voluntarily depart the country in order to satisfy the statute, as well as broader consistency within the legal system.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide how plaintiffs can demonstrate intent (also called “scienter”) under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) for the purpose of alleging securities fraud. More specifically, this case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether plaintiffs can allege intent based on allegations about internal company documents without referring to specific content in those documents. It also asks the Supreme Court to determine if plaintiffs can satisfy the Act's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion in lieu of particularized allegations of fact. NVIDIA argues that Öhman’s failure to allege with particularity the contents of the internal documents to show that NVIDIA misrepresented its finances to investors does not show a strong inference of scienter that the PSLRA requires in order to reduce frivolous lawsuits, and that Öhman’s reliance on expert testimony to satisfy the PSLRA’s rigorous particularity standard would allow plaintiffs to circumvent it. Öhman counters that the PSLRA evinces a holistic approach in meeting the burden of showing a strong inference of scienter rather than requiring one specific allegation. Öhman also claims that an expert’s conclusion is an allegation of fact since the experts’ assertion is backed by embedded statements of fact to arrive at such a conclusion. The outcome of this case has strong implications for the national economy and access to justice.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether one can commit attempted murder without using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force against another person or their property. If no, attempted murder is a “crime of violence” and can serve as the basis for sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); if yes, it cannot—regardless of whether an individual defendant actually used physical force against another person. Salvatore Delligatti, who was convicted of attempted murder and seeks to challenge the enhancement of his sentence for that offense, argues that attempted murder does not inherently involve the action of using physical force because even completed murder can be committed through inaction. The United States counters that intentionally causing the death of another person, even through inaction, inherently involves the use of whatever physical force causes that other person’s death. The outcome of this case will determine the continued viability of Congress’s four-decade-old mechanism to crack down on gun violence, the Armed Career Criminal Act.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine whether reimbursement requests made by schools and public libraries to the Federal Communications Commission’s E-Rate program can constitute false “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). Wisconsin Bell contends that the FCA does not cover reimbursement requests to the E-Rate program because the money for the E-Rate program’s funds comes solely from private companies, and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is not an agent of the federal government. The federal government argues that the FCA does cover reimbursement requests to the E-Rate program because the funds are made available by the federal government, and the federal government can control the USAC. This case touches on important questions regarding the FCA’s scope and the FCA’s impact on businesses working with the federal government.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a company’s risk disclosure to investors is false or misleading when the company does not disclose a risk that has materialized in the past, even when that past event poses no risk of ongoing or future harm to the company. In this case, Facebook failed to disclose a past data breach, the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, in its 2016 10-K disclosures. Shareholders sued the company and its executives, arguing that the failure to disclose this information was false or misleading. On one hand, Facebook argues that it does not have to disclose such past events in the form at issue because risk disclosures are forward-looking and investors understand that. On the other hand, Amalgamated Bank contends that companies must disclose information about past bad events because stating a risk as a hypothetical event could mislead investors into believing there have been no past bad events. The outcome of this case will affect the requirements of risk disclosures, which could impact the quantity and quality of disclosure information, how much companies must disclose, and whether investors’ demands are met.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks for the Supreme Court to decide which standard of proof applies when an employer asserts an FLSA exemption as an affirmative defense from liability: preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. Petitioners, E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. (“E.M.D.”), argue that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies only in limited circumstances, not to mere monetary disputes between private parties. Further, E.M.D. asserts that the risk of erroneous decision is equal between the parties. Respondents Faustino Sanchez Carrera et al. (“Carrera”), argue that a clear and convincing evidence standard applies because the FLSA protects important interests. Further, Carrera argues the clear and convincing evidence standard is necessary to allocate the unequal risks among employers and employees. The outcome of this case has serious implications for labor law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources