Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court whether a former employee can sue over discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act after they have already left their job. Stanley argues that retirees, such as herself, have the right to sue regardless of whether they meet the definition of a qualified individual, and alternatively, that she qualifies as an eligible qualified individual even though she is suing post-employment. Sanford contends that Stanley did not previously argue that retirees have the right to sue regardless of their status as qualified individuals and has therefore waived her right to make this argument. Moreover, Sanford maintains that Stanley does not meet the definition of a qualified individual because Congress did not intend for employees to sue under the ADA post-employment. The outcome of this case has implications for disabled employees’ retirement benefits and the economic freedom of both employers and cities. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case concerns the scope of the First Step Act’s sentencing reforms regarding defendants who were sentenced before the Act’s passage but have been re-sentenced since. The Hewitt defendants and the United States argue that the First Step Act’s inclusion of sentences “not imposed” before the statute’s enactment should apply to the defendants’ sentences, since the re-evaluation of the defendants’ sentences means that the original judgements were not “imposed sentences.” However, the Hewitt defendants and the United States differ in their reasonings. The Hewitt defendants contend their re-sentencing is covered by the Act because of the general principles that courts must interpret ambiguous criminal laws in favor of defendants and that vacated sentences should be treated as not having occurred. The United States contends that the Hewitt defendants are covered by the Act because of the specific language of the Act referencing currently valid sentences, the larger statutory context, and the larger legislative goals motivating the Act. This case has implications for the application of criminal justice sentencing reforms, as well as for how the Court evaluates Congressional intent.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine if 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which criminalizes the making of a false statement to influence federal agencies, also criminalizes true but misleading statements. Petitioner contends that the statute is limited to false statements. Respondent contends that section 1014 criminalizes any “false” statement, including misleading ones. This case touches upon important questions regarding the balancing act between protecting financial institutions from fraudulent acts and overexpansive criminal liability.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if courts may relieve a party under Rule 60(b) from a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Waetzig contends that the language “final judgment, order, or proceeding” in Rule 60(b) includes a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice because it is a step in a proceeding that terminates the case. Halliburton Energy Services counters that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is neither a proceeding nor final because the plaintiff preserves the right to refile suit. The outcome of this case affects federal courts’ ability to grant Rule 60(b) relief to plaintiffs who dismissed their case because of a mistake or fraud. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

H.B. 1181 is a Texas law seeking to regulate commercial entities that publish sexual material. When more than one-third of the entities’ published material is sexually explicit, H.B. 1181 requires those entities to implement age verification systems. Free Speech Coalition argues that H.B. 1181’s age verification provision burdens adult access to constitutionally protected speech and thus the Supreme Court should apply strict scrutiny when reviewing it. Free Speech Coalition further argues that it meets the requirements for a preliminary injunction on the enforcement of H.B. 1181’s age verification provision. Paxton, on the other hand, argues that rational basis review should apply to the age verification provision because it is not content-based or speaker-based discrimination. Paxton further counters that Coalition has not proved it meets the requirements for a preliminary injunction on the enforcement of the age verification provision. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will influence how future statutes impacting protected speech may be reviewed by courts, how state governments can regulate pornography distributors to protect minors, and how the data privacy and cybersecurity of adults who use pornography websites will be weighed by the courts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act violates the First Amendment. TikTok claims that its American subsidiary TikTok Inc. is protected by the First Amendment and that the Act is subject to strict scrutiny. TikTok argues that the government’s purported interests are facially deficient and not narrowly tailored. On the other hand, Attorney General Merrick Garland contends TikTok’s U.S. subsidiary does not grant it First Amendment protections, and even if it does the Act is not subject to heightened scrutiny. Further, Garland asserts that the Act promotes two compelling national security interests and is narrowly tailored. The outcome of this case has significant implications for foreign relations, the proper scope of Congress’s ability to regulate speech, and civil rights.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine if the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. Seven County Infrastructure Coalition contends that NEPA only requires an agency to consider effects with a “reasonably close causal relationship” to the agency’s proposed action. Eagle County, Colorado counters that NEPA requires an agency to consider reasonably foreseeable effects of an agency’s proposed action that include effects a “prudent person” would consider when reaching a decision. This case touches upon important questions regarding the balancing act between economic and other national concerns and environmental protection.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Court to determine whether a private contractor’s fraudulent misrepresentation to a government agency regarding the contractor’s subcontracting duties causes harm sufficient for a conviction of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Kousisis argues that the fraudulent-inducement theory that formed the basis for his conviction expands the notion of a property interest beyond the language of § 1343. Kousisis claims that expansion would convert all purposeful breaches of contract into federal crimes with harsh sentences, increasing the size of the federal prison population. The United States argues that the fraudulent-inducement theory fits within the statute and the Court’s precedent. In any event, the United States claims that the government agency overspent on the project because of Kousisis’s misrepresentations, and the government has an interest in protecting against such harms.  The United States asserts that overcriminalization is not an issue, and that contractors should not escape prosecution for misrepresentations to obtain government contracts.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources