U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will decide whether the phrase “goods or services from a video tape service provider,” as used in the Video Privacy Protection Act’s definition of “consumer,” refers to all of a video tape service provider’s goods or services or only to its audiovisual goods or services.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Stinson v. United States still correctly states the rule for deference that courts must give the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a complaint alleging a fiduciary breach in ERISA underperformance cases must include allegations of a “meaningful benchmark” to survive the pleading stage.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether it has statutory and Article III jurisdiction to hear this case; and (2) whether federal law precludes state-law claims seeking relief for injuries allegedly caused by the effects of interstate and international greenhouse-gas emissions on the global climate.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act stripped district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized by this court in Johnson v. Robison, to hear challenges to the constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans’ benefits.

A case in which the Court held that the TPS statute’s judicial review bar blocks all non-constitutional challenges to the Secretary of Homeland Security's decisions to grant, extend, or terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

A case in which the Court held that a generic drug manufacturer does not actively induce patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) when its communications consist only of legally required labeling, standard industry language, omissions, and vague statements that lack any affirmative purpose of encouraging the patented use.

A case in which the Court held that neither the Alien Tort Statute nor the Torture Victim Protection Act supplies a judicially implied private right of action for aiding-and-abetting liability.

A case in which the Court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act preempts a label-based failure-to-warn claim where EPA has not required the warning.

A case in which the Court held that law enforcement’s use of a geofence warrant to obtain location data from a tech company constitutes a Fourth Amendment search, requiring a valid warrant supported by probable cause and particularity, because people retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in detailed records of their physical movements.