Supreme Court of the United States

QUESTION PRESENTED:

In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), this Court held that "mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments.'" Id. at 465. Four years later, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), the Court held that "Miller announced a substantive rule of constitutional law" that, under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), must be given "retroactive effect" in cases where direct review was complete when Miller was decided. Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 736. 

The question presented is: 

Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding-in direct conflict with Virginia's highest court and other courts-that a decision of this Court (Montgomery) addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision (Miller) applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question?

Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-217_k5fl.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED:

Whether the "discovery rule" applies to toll the one (1) year statute of limitations under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq., as the Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held but the Third Circuit (sua sponte en banc) has held contrarily.

Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-328_l6gn.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED:

In 1986, Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act CIRCA (IRCA). IRCA made it illegal to employ unauthorized aliens, established an employment eligibility verification system, and created various civil and criminal penalties against employers who violate the law. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Regulations implementing IRCA created a "Form I-9" that employers are required to have all prospective employees complete-citizens and aliens alike. 

IRCA contains an "express preemption provision, which in most instances bars States from imposing penalties on employers of unauthorized aliens," Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 406 (2012), but IRCA "is silent about whether additional penalties may be imposed against the employees themselves." Id. IRCA also provides that "[the Form I-9] and any information contained in or appended to such form, may not be used for purposes other than enforcement of [chapter 12 of Title 8] and sections 1001, 1028, 1546, and 1621 of Title 18." 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b)(5). 

Here, Respondents used other peoples' social security numbers to complete documents, including a Form I-9, a federal W-4 tax form, a state K-4 tax form, and an apartment lease. Kansas prosecuted Respondents for identity theft and making false writings without using the Form I-9, but the Kansas Supreme Court held that IRCA expressly barred these state prosecutions. This petition presents two questions, depending on the answer to the first question: 

Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/17-834_jifl.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED:

Whether the Appointments Clause governs the appointment of members of the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico.

CONSOLIDATED WITH 18-1475, 18-1496, 18-1514 AND 18-1521, AND WILL BE SET FOR ARGUMENT IN THE SECOND WEEK OF THE OCTOBER 2019 ARGUMENT SESSION.

Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-1334_dc8f.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED: 

GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER TITLE VII PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST TRANSGENDER PEOPLE BASED ON (1) THEIR STATUS AS TRANSGENDER OR (2) SEX STEREOTYPING UNDER PRICE WATERHOUSE v. HOPKINS, 490 U. S. 228 (1989).

Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-107_c18e.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED: 

Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination "because of... sex" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

CONSOLIDATED WITH 17-1623 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT.

Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/17-1618_7k47.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED: 

Whether the Fourteenth Amendment fully incorporates the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a unanimous verdict?

THE MOTION OF PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS GRANTED, AND G. BEN COHEN, ESQ., OF NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA, IS APPOINTED TO SERVE AS COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER IN THIS CASE.

Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-5924_4gcj.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED: 

When the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denies a patent application, the Patent Act gives the unsuccessful applicant two avenues for seeking judicial review of the agency's decision. The applicant may appeal directly to the Federal Circuit, 35 U.S.C. 141, which "shall review the decision from which an appeal is taken on the record before the [USPTO],” 35 U.S.C. 144. Alternatively, the applicant may bring a civil action against the Director of the USPTO in district court, where the applicant may present additional evidence. 35 U.S.C. 145. If the applicant elects to bring such an action, "[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings shall be paid by the applicant." Ibid. The question presented is as follows: 

Whether the phrase "[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings" in 35 U.S.C. 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the USPTO incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.

Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-801_7kh7.pdf

QUESTION PRESENTED: 

Do the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments permit a state to abolish the insanity defense?

Transcript to Argument: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-6135_5h26.pdf