• United States v. Microsoft Corp.
  Whether a United States provider of email services must comply with a probable-cause-based warrant issued under 18 U.S.C. § 2703 by making disclosure in the United States of electronic communications within that provider's control, even if the provider has decided to store that material abroad.
• Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
  Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
• Gill v. Whitford
  (1) Whether the district court violated Vieth v. Jubelirer when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis; (2) whether the district court violated Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles; (3) whether the district court violated Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer; (4) whether the defendants are entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed; and (5) whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.
• National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
  Whether the disclosures required by the California Reproductive FACT Act violate the protections set forth in the free speech clause of the First Amendment,
• Carpenter v. United States
  Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cellphone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days is permitted by the Fourth Amendment.
• Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
  Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

Array ( [0] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => american-humanist-association-v-birdville-independent-school-district [post_title] => American Humanist Association v. Birdville Independent School District [ID] => 259765 ) [1] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => antonick-v-electronic-arts-inc [post_title] => Antonick v. Electronic Arts, Inc. [ID] => 259764 ) [2] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => association-des-eleveurs-de-canards-et-doies-du-quebec-v-harris [post_title] => Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Québec v. Harris [ID] => 209653 ) [3] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => butts-v-sellers [post_title] => Butts v. Sellers [ID] => 263077 ) [4] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => caraffa-v-carnival-corp [post_title] => Caraffa v. Carnival Corp. [ID] => 254362 ) [5] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => christensen-v-tennessee [post_title] => Christensen v. Tennessee [ID] => 261859 ) [6] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => city-bloomfield-new-mexico-v-felix [post_title] => City of Bloomfield, New Mexico v. Felix [ID] => 259429 ) [7] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => coachella-valley-water-district-v-agua-caliente-band-cahuilla-indians [post_title] => Coachella Valley Water District v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians [ID] => 260171 ) [8] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => el-nahal-v-yassky [post_title] => El-Nahal v. Yassky [ID] => 250982 ) [9] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => elmore-v-holbrook [post_title] => Elmore v. Holbrook [ID] => 243232 ) [10] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => fts-usa-llc-v-monroe-2 [post_title] => FTS USA, LLC v. Monroe [ID] => 264407 ) [11] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => garcia-v-bloomberg [post_title] => Garcia v. Bloomberg [ID] => 253790 ) [12] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => georgiou-v-united-states [post_title] => Georgiou v. United States [ID] => 231013 ) [13] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => gordon-v-bank-of-america-n-a [post_title] => Gordon v. Bank of America, N.A. [ID] => 213021 ) [14] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => little-sisters-of-the-poor-home-for-the-aged-v-burwell [post_title] => Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell [ID] => 231204 ) [15] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => lockwood-andrews-newman-p-c-v-mason [post_title] => Lockwood, Andrews & Newman, P.C. v. Mason [ID] => 254365 ) [16] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => luis-v-united-states [post_title] => Luis v. United States [ID] => 221255 ) [17] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => moodys-corp-v-federal-home-loan-bank-of-boston [post_title] => Moody's Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston [ID] => 245997 ) [18] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => new-mexico-association-of-nonpublic-schools-v-moses [post_title] => New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses [ID] => 243046 ) [19] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => perez-guzman-v-sessions [post_title] => Perez-Guzman v. Sessions [ID] => 261671 ) [20] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => reyes-v-sessions [post_title] => Reyes v. Sessions [ID] => 259959 ) [21] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => schulman-v-lexisnexis-risk-and-information-analytics-group-inc [post_title] => Schulman v. LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc. [ID] => 243819 ) [22] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => shakbazyan-v-united-states [post_title] => Shakbazyan v. United States [ID] => 251646 ) [23] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => smithkline-beecham-corp-v-king-drug-co-of-florence-inc [post_title] => SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. [ID] => 239040 ) [24] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => tilton-v-securities-exchange-commission [post_title] => Tilton v. Securities and Exchange Commission [ID] => 251632 ) [25] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => trudeau-v-united-states [post_title] => Trudeau v. United States [ID] => 245338 ) [26] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => ultraflo-corp-v-pelican-tank-parts-inc [post_title] => Ultraflo Corp. v. Pelican Tank Parts, Inc. [ID] => 253793 ) [27] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => vanessa-g-v-tennessee-dept-of-childrens-services [post_title] => Vanessa G. v. Tennessee Dep’t of Children’s Services [ID] => 242382 ) [28] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => werner-v-wall [post_title] => Werner v. Wall [ID] => 251622 ) [29] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => wilchcombe-v-united-states [post_title] => Wilchcombe v. United States [ID] => 253872 ) )

Conference of February 16, 2018

• FTS USA, LLC v. Monroe (1) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act and the due process clause permit a collective action to be certified and tried to verdict based on testimony from a small subset of putative plaintiffs without either any statistical or other similarly reliable showing that the experiences of those who testified are typical and can be reliably be extrapolated to the entire class, or a jury finding that the testifying witnesses are representative of the absent plaintiffs; and (2) whether the procedure for determining damages upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in which the district court unilaterally determined damages without any jury finding, violates the Seventh Amendment.

More Petitions »