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

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if any civilian employee who is called to active military duty during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay—compensation for the difference between their civilian pay and military pay—under 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a). Feliciano contends that all civilian employees called to duty during a national emergency should receive differential pay. The Department of Transportation (“DOT”) counters that 5 U.S.C. § 5538(a) requires the civilian employee’s work to be related to a contingency operation rather than merely coinciding temporally with the national emergency to qualify for differential pay. The outcome of this case has profound implications for the United States military’s effectiveness and financial security of military reservists.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Issues

This case asks the Supreme Court if a judge can include profits of corporate affiliates, not named as defendants in a trademark infringement case when calculating how much to award in damages. Dewberry Group argues that under the Lanham Act, only the profits of the named defendant can be used in this calculation. Dewberry Group further argues that if the non-party affiliates’ profits were to be used, there should be an opportunity to litigate the matter of corporate separateness. Dewberry Engineers, on the other hand, counters that the Lanham Act consists of a two-step process where the second step allows the judge to award a “just sum” that may include the non-party affiliates’ profits. Additionally, Dewberry Engineers contends that there is no need for a separate legal analysis to disregard corporate separateness because the Lanham Act allows a judge to consider all relevant evidence including the non-party affiliates’ profits. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will impact future trademark infringement cases, particularly how the corporate form will be considered in awarding damages under the Lanham Act.

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 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