Supreme Court Press

Pending merits cases and the info required to execute an amicus filing. Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

case number

case title

17-8151

Bucklew v. Precythe

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Robert N. Hochman

Sidley Austin, LLP

One South Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 853-2936

rhochman@sidley.com

Party name: Russell Bucklew

Counsel for Respondent

D. John Sauer

Office of the Attorney General

Supreme Court Building, 207 West High Street

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-3321

john.sauer@ago.mo.gov

Party name: Anne Precythe, et al.

Question 1
Should a court evaluating an as-applied challenge to a state's method of execution based on an inmate's rare and severe medical condition assume that medical personnel are competent to manage his condition and that the procedure will go as intended? Must evidence comparing a state's proposed method of execution with an alternative proposed by an inmate be offered via a single witness, or should a court at summary judgment look to the record as a whole to determine whether a factfinder could conclude that the two methods significantly differ in the risks they pose to the inmate? Does the Eighth Amendment require an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state's proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition?

Question 2
Whether petitioner met his burden under Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), to prove what procedures would be used to administer his proposed alternative method of execution, the severity and duration of pain likely to be produced, and how they compare to the state’s method of execution.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-7505

Vernon Madison v. Alabama

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 22, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 31, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Bryan A. Stevenson

122 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

(334) 269-1803

Party name: Vernon Madison

Counsel for Respondent

James Roy Houts

Office of the Alabama Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 3000152

Montgomery, AL 36130-0152

3343531513

jhouts@ago.state.al.us

Party name: State of Alabama

Question 1

1. Consistent with the Eighth Amendment, and this Court's decisions in Ford and Panetti, LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: CC-1985-001385.80 CERT. GRANTED 2/26/2018 may the State execute a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him without memory of his commission of the capital offense? See Dunn v. Madison, 138 S. Ct. 9, 12 (Nov. 6, 2017) Ginsburg, J., with Breyer, J., and Sotomayor, J., concurring).

Question 2

2. Do evolving standards of decency and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment bar the execution of a prisoner whose competency has been compromised by vascular dementia and multiple strokes causing severe cognitive dysfunction and a degenerative medical condition which prevents him from remembering the crime for which he was convicted or understanding the circumstances of his scheduled execution?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-6086

Herman Avery Gundy v. United States

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 25, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due August 2, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Sarah Baumgartel

Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.

52 Duane Street

10th Floor

New York, NY 10007

sarah_baumgartel@fd.org

212-417-8772

Party name: Herman Gundy

Counsel for Respondent

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States

Question 1

(1) Whether convicted sex offenders are "required to register” under the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act ("SORNA”) while in custody, regardless of how long they have until release.

Question 2

(2) Whether all offenders convicted of a qualifying sex offense prior to SORNA's enactment are "required to register" under SORNA no later than August 1, 2008.

Question 3

(3) Whether a defendant violates 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), which requires interstate travel, where his only movement between states occurs while he is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and serving a prison sentence.

Question 4

(4) Whether SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) violates the nondelegation doctrine.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-5554

Denard Stokeling v. United States

Certiorari Granted on April 2, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be April 23, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Brenda G. Bryn

1 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1100

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1100

(954) 356-7436

Party name: Denard Stokeling

Counsel for Respondents

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States

Question Presented

Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-988

Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Andrew J. Pincus

Mayer Brown LLP

1999 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 263-3220

apincus@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Lamps Plus, Inc., et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Michele M. Vercoski

McCune Wright Arevalo

3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100

Ontario, CA 91761

909-557-1250

mmv@mccunewright.com

Party name: Frank Varela

Question Presented
In Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. this Court held that a court couldmnot order arbitration to proceed using class procedures unless there was a "contractual basis" for concluding that the parties have "agreed to" class arbitration. 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010) (emphasis in original). This Court explained that courts may not "presume" such consent from "mere silence on the issue of class arbitration" or "from the fact of the parties' agreement to arbitrate." Id. at 685, 687. The arbitration clause at issue here did not mention class arbitration. A divided Ninth Circuit panel majority (Reinhardt & Wardlaw, JJ.) nonetheless inferred mutual assent to class arbitration from such standard language as the parties' agreement that "arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings" and a description of the substantive claims subject to arbitration. App., infra, 3a-4a. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-961

Theodore H. Frank et al. v. Paloma Gaos

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Andrew Michael Grossman

Baker & Hostetler LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 861-1697

agrossman@bakerlaw.com

Party name: Theodore H. Frank et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Donald Manwell Falk

Mayer Brown LLP

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300

3000 El Camino Real

Palo Alto, CA 94306

(650) 331-2000

dfalk@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Google LLC

Counsel for Respondent

Kassra Powell Nassiri

Nassiri & Jung LLP

47 Kearny Street, Suite 700

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415) 762-3111

kass@njfirm.com

Party name: Paloma Gaos, et al.

Question Presented
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) permits representatives to maintain a class action where so doing "is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy," and Rule 23(e)(2) requires that a settlement that binds class members must be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." In this case, the Ninth Circuit upheld approval of an $8.5 million settlement that disposed of absent class members' claims while providing them zero monetary relief. Breaking with decisions of the Third Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and Eighth Circuit that require compensating class members before putting class action proceeds to other uses, the Ninth Circuit held that the settlement's award of all net proceeds to third-party organizations selected by the defendant and class counsel was a fair and adequate remedy under the trust-law doctrine of cy pres. The question presented is: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-766

United States v. Jason Daniels Sims

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018
SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.
This case has been joined to No.17-765
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 7, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

Counsel for Respondent

Chris Tarver

Federal Defender Office

1401 W. Capitol, Suite 490

Little Rock, AR 72201

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(501) 324-6113

chris_tarver@fd.org
Party name: Jason Sims

Question Presented

Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as "burglary" under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-765

United States v. Victor J. Stitt, II

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018
SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.
This case has been joined to No.17-766
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 7, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

Counsel for Respondent

Timothy Carl Ivey

Federal Public Defender, N.D. of Ohio

1660 West Second Street, Suite 750

Cleveland, OH 44113

(216) 522-4856

timothy_ivey@fd.org

Party name: Victor Stitt, II

Question Presented

Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as "burglary" under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-647

Rose Mary Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al.

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 21, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 20, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

J. David Breemer

Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 419-7111

Party name: Rose Mary Knick

Counsel for for Respondent

Teresa Ficken Sachs

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin

2000 Market Street

Suite 2300

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-575-2000

tfsachs@mdwcg.com

Party name: Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Question 1

Whether the Court should reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-96 (1985), requiring property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims, as suggested by Justices of this Court? See Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC V. Town of Durham, 136 S. Ct. 1409 (2016) (Thomas, J., joined by Kennedy, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 348 (2005) (Rehnquist, C.J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., concurring in judgment).

Question 2

Alternately, whether Williamson County's ripeness doctrine bars review of takings claims asserting that a law causes an unconstitutional taking on its face as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and now Third Circuits hold, or whether facial claims are exempt from Williamson County, as the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits hold?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-587

Mount Lemmon Fire District v. John Guido, et al.

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 5, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

E. Joshua Rosenkranz

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

51 West 52nd Street

New York, NY 10019

212-506-5000

jrosenkranz@orrick.com

Party name: Mount Lemmon Fire District

Counsel for Respondent

Don T. Awerkamp

Awerkamp & Bonilla, PLC

6891 N. Oracle Road, Suite 155

Tucson, AZ 85704

(520) 798-5282

da@abdilaw.com

Party name: John Guido, et al.

Question Presented

Under the ADEA, does the same twenty-employee minimum that applies to private employers also apply to political subdivisions of a State, as the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held, or does the ADEA apply instead to all State political subdivisions of any size, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-340

New Prime Inc. v. Dominic Oliveira

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be May 14, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 11, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Theodore J. Boutrous

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Los Angeles, CA 90071

213-229-7000

tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

Party name: New Prime Inc.

Counsel for Respondent

Jennifer D. Bennett

Public Justice

555 12th Street, Suite 1230

Oakland, CA 94607

(510) 622-8150

jbennett@publicjustice.net

Party name: Dominic Oliveira

Question 1

1. Whether a dispute over applicability of the FAA's Section 1 exemption is an arbitrability issue that must be resolved in arbitration pursuant to a valid delegation clause.

Question 2

2. Whether the FAA's Section 1 exemption, which applies on its face only to "contracts of employment," is inapplicable to independent contractor agreements.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-74

Markle Interests, L.L.C., et al., Petitioners v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Certiorari Granted on January 22, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
This case is joined to No. 17-71
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due by April 23, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Mark Miller

8645 N. Military Trail

Suite 511

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

United States Department of Justice

561-691-5000

mm@pacificlegal.org

Party name: Markle Interests, LLC, et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Timothy S. Bishop

Mayer Brown, LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312-701-7829

tbishop@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Weyerhaeuser Company

Party name: United States

-------------------

John Thorvald Buse

Center for Biological Diversity

1212 Broadway, Suite 800

Oakland, CA 94612

510-844-7125

jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org

Party name: Intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network

Party name: United States

-------------------

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Party name: United States

-------------------

Question One

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Question Two

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-71

Weyerhaeuser Company, Petitioner v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Certiorari Granted on January 22, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
This case is joined to No. 17-74
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due April 23, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Timothy S. Bishop

Mayer Brown, LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312-701-7829

tbishop@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Weyerhaeuser Company

Party name: United States

Counsel for Petitioner

John Thorvald Buse

Center for Biological Diversity

1212 Broadway, Suite 800

Oakland, CA 94612

510-844-7125

jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org

Party name: Intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network

Party name: United States

-------------------

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Party name: United States

-------------------

Mark Miller

8645 N. Military Trail

Suite 511

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

United States Department of Justice

561-691-5000

mm@pacificlegal.org

Party name: Markle Interests, LLC, et al.

Question One

1. Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation.

Question Two

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

16-1363

Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Mony Preap, et al.

Certiorari Granted on March 19, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due by June 1, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due by August 6, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

202-514-2217

Party name: Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Michael King Thomas Tan

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

125 Broad St., 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

212-549-2500

mtan@aclu.org

Party name: Mony Preap, et al.

Question Presented

Is a state robbery offense that includes "as an element" the common law requirement of overcoming "victim resistance" categorically a "violent felony" under the only remaining definition of that term in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)(an offense that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another"), if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

16-1363

Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Mony Preap, et al.

Certiorari Granted on March 19, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due by June 1, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due by August 6, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

202-514-2217

Party name: Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Michael King Thomas Tan

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

125 Broad St., 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

212-549-2500

mtan@aclu.org

Party name: Mony Preap, et al.

Question Presented

Is a state robbery offense that includes "as an element" the common law requirement of overcoming "victim resistance" categorically a "violent felony" under the only remaining definition of that term in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)(an offense that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another"), if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-71

Weyerhaeuser Company, Petitioner v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Certiorari Granted on January 22, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
This case is joined to No. 17-74
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due April 23, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Timothy S. Bishop

Mayer Brown, LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312-701-7829

tbishop@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Weyerhaeuser Company

Party name: United States

Counsel for Petitioner

John Thorvald Buse

Center for Biological Diversity

1212 Broadway, Suite 800

Oakland, CA 94612

510-844-7125

jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org

Party name: Intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network

Party name: United States

-------------------

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Party name: United States

-------------------

Mark Miller

8645 N. Military Trail

Suite 511

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

United States Department of Justice

561-691-5000

mm@pacificlegal.org

Party name: Markle Interests, LLC, et al.

Question One

1. Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation.

Question Two

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-74

Markle Interests, L.L.C., et al., Petitioners v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Certiorari Granted on January 22, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
This case is joined to No. 17-71
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due by April 23, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Mark Miller

8645 N. Military Trail

Suite 511

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

United States Department of Justice

561-691-5000

mm@pacificlegal.org

Party name: Markle Interests, LLC, et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Timothy S. Bishop

Mayer Brown, LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312-701-7829

tbishop@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Weyerhaeuser Company

Party name: United States

-------------------

John Thorvald Buse

Center for Biological Diversity

1212 Broadway, Suite 800

Oakland, CA 94612

510-844-7125

jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org

Party name: Intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network

Party name: United States

-------------------

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Party name: United States

-------------------

Question One

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Question Two

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-340

New Prime Inc. v. Dominic Oliveira

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be May 14, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 11, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Theodore J. Boutrous

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Los Angeles, CA 90071

213-229-7000

tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

Party name: New Prime Inc.

Counsel for Respondent

Jennifer D. Bennett

Public Justice

555 12th Street, Suite 1230

Oakland, CA 94607

(510) 622-8150

jbennett@publicjustice.net

Party name: Dominic Oliveira

Question 1

1. Whether a dispute over applicability of the FAA's Section 1 exemption is an arbitrability issue that must be resolved in arbitration pursuant to a valid delegation clause.

Question 2

2. Whether the FAA's Section 1 exemption, which applies on its face only to "contracts of employment," is inapplicable to independent contractor agreements.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-587

Mount Lemmon Fire District v. John Guido, et al.

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 5, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

E. Joshua Rosenkranz

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

51 West 52nd Street

New York, NY 10019

212-506-5000

jrosenkranz@orrick.com

Party name: Mount Lemmon Fire District

Counsel for Respondent

Don T. Awerkamp

Awerkamp & Bonilla, PLC

6891 N. Oracle Road, Suite 155

Tucson, AZ 85704

(520) 798-5282

da@abdilaw.com

Party name: John Guido, et al.

Question Presented

Under the ADEA, does the same twenty-employee minimum that applies to private employers also apply to political subdivisions of a State, as the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held, or does the ADEA apply instead to all State political subdivisions of any size, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-647

Rose Mary Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al.

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 21, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 20, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

J. David Breemer

Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 419-7111

Party name: Rose Mary Knick

Counsel for for Respondent

Teresa Ficken Sachs

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin

2000 Market Street

Suite 2300

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-575-2000

tfsachs@mdwcg.com

Party name: Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Question 1

Whether the Court should reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-96 (1985), requiring property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims, as suggested by Justices of this Court? See Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC V. Town of Durham, 136 S. Ct. 1409 (2016) (Thomas, J., joined by Kennedy, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 348 (2005) (Rehnquist, C.J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., concurring in judgment).

Question 2

Alternately, whether Williamson County's ripeness doctrine bars review of takings claims asserting that a law causes an unconstitutional taking on its face as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and now Third Circuits hold, or whether facial claims are exempt from Williamson County, as the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits hold?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-765

United States v. Victor J. Stitt, II

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018
SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.
This case has been joined to No.17-766
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 7, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

Counsel for Respondent

Timothy Carl Ivey

Federal Public Defender, N.D. of Ohio

1660 West Second Street, Suite 750

Cleveland, OH 44113

(216) 522-4856

timothy_ivey@fd.org

Party name: Victor Stitt, II

Question Presented

Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as "burglary" under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-766

United States v. Jason Daniels Sims

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018
SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.
This case has been joined to No.17-765
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 7, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

Counsel for Respondent

Chris Tarver

Federal Defender Office

1401 W. Capitol, Suite 490

Little Rock, AR 72201

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(501) 324-6113

chris_tarver@fd.org
Party name: Jason Sims

Question Presented

Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as "burglary" under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-961

Theodore H. Frank et al. v. Paloma Gaos

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Andrew Michael Grossman

Baker & Hostetler LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 861-1697

agrossman@bakerlaw.com

Party name: Theodore H. Frank et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Donald Manwell Falk

Mayer Brown LLP

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300

3000 El Camino Real

Palo Alto, CA 94306

(650) 331-2000

dfalk@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Google LLC

Counsel for Respondent

Kassra Powell Nassiri

Nassiri & Jung LLP

47 Kearny Street, Suite 700

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415) 762-3111

kass@njfirm.com

Party name: Paloma Gaos, et al.

Question Presented
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) permits representatives to maintain a class action where so doing "is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy," and Rule 23(e)(2) requires that a settlement that binds class members must be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." In this case, the Ninth Circuit upheld approval of an $8.5 million settlement that disposed of absent class members' claims while providing them zero monetary relief. Breaking with decisions of the Third Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and Eighth Circuit that require compensating class members before putting class action proceeds to other uses, the Ninth Circuit held that the settlement's award of all net proceeds to third-party organizations selected by the defendant and class counsel was a fair and adequate remedy under the trust-law doctrine of cy pres. The question presented is: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-988

Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Andrew J. Pincus

Mayer Brown LLP

1999 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 263-3220

apincus@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Lamps Plus, Inc., et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Michele M. Vercoski

McCune Wright Arevalo

3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100

Ontario, CA 91761

909-557-1250

mmv@mccunewright.com

Party name: Frank Varela

Question Presented
In Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. this Court held that a court couldmnot order arbitration to proceed using class procedures unless there was a "contractual basis" for concluding that the parties have "agreed to" class arbitration. 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010) (emphasis in original). This Court explained that courts may not "presume" such consent from "mere silence on the issue of class arbitration" or "from the fact of the parties' agreement to arbitrate." Id. at 685, 687. The arbitration clause at issue here did not mention class arbitration. A divided Ninth Circuit panel majority (Reinhardt & Wardlaw, JJ.) nonetheless inferred mutual assent to class arbitration from such standard language as the parties' agreement that "arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings" and a description of the substantive claims subject to arbitration. App., infra, 3a-4a. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-5554

Denard Stokeling v. United States

Certiorari Granted on April 2, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be April 23, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Brenda G. Bryn

1 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1100

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1100

(954) 356-7436

Party name: Denard Stokeling

Counsel for Respondents

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States

Question Presented

Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-6086

Herman Avery Gundy v. United States

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 25, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due August 2, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Sarah Baumgartel

Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.

52 Duane Street

10th Floor

New York, NY 10007

sarah_baumgartel@fd.org

212-417-8772

Party name: Herman Gundy

Counsel for Respondent

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States

Question 1

(1) Whether convicted sex offenders are "required to register” under the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act ("SORNA”) while in custody, regardless of how long they have until release.

Question 2

(2) Whether all offenders convicted of a qualifying sex offense prior to SORNA's enactment are "required to register" under SORNA no later than August 1, 2008.

Question 3

(3) Whether a defendant violates 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), which requires interstate travel, where his only movement between states occurs while he is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and serving a prison sentence.

Question 4

(4) Whether SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) violates the nondelegation doctrine.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-7505

Vernon Madison v. Alabama

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 22, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 31, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Bryan A. Stevenson

122 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

(334) 269-1803

Party name: Vernon Madison

Counsel for Respondent

James Roy Houts

Office of the Alabama Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 3000152

Montgomery, AL 36130-0152

3343531513

jhouts@ago.state.al.us

Party name: State of Alabama

Question 1

1. Consistent with the Eighth Amendment, and this Court's decisions in Ford and Panetti, LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: CC-1985-001385.80 CERT. GRANTED 2/26/2018 may the State execute a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him without memory of his commission of the capital offense? See Dunn v. Madison, 138 S. Ct. 9, 12 (Nov. 6, 2017) Ginsburg, J., with Breyer, J., and Sotomayor, J., concurring).

Question 2

2. Do evolving standards of decency and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment bar the execution of a prisoner whose competency has been compromised by vascular dementia and multiple strokes causing severe cognitive dysfunction and a degenerative medical condition which prevents him from remembering the crime for which he was convicted or understanding the circumstances of his scheduled execution?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-8151

Bucklew v. Precythe

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Robert N. Hochman

Sidley Austin, LLP

One South Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 853-2936

rhochman@sidley.com

Party name: Russell Bucklew

Counsel for Respondent

D. John Sauer

Office of the Attorney General

Supreme Court Building, 207 West High Street

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-3321

john.sauer@ago.mo.gov

Party name: Anne Precythe, et al.

Question 1
Should a court evaluating an as-applied challenge to a state's method of execution based on an inmate's rare and severe medical condition assume that medical personnel are competent to manage his condition and that the procedure will go as intended? Must evidence comparing a state's proposed method of execution with an alternative proposed by an inmate be offered via a single witness, or should a court at summary judgment look to the record as a whole to determine whether a factfinder could conclude that the two methods significantly differ in the risks they pose to the inmate? Does the Eighth Amendment require an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state's proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition?

Question 2
Whether petitioner met his burden under Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), to prove what procedures would be used to administer his proposed alternative method of execution, the severity and duration of pain likely to be produced, and how they compare to the state’s method of execution.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-8151

Bucklew v. Precythe

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Robert N. Hochman

Sidley Austin, LLP

One South Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 853-2936

rhochman@sidley.com

Party name: Russell Bucklew

Counsel for Respondent

D. John Sauer

Office of the Attorney General

Supreme Court Building, 207 West High Street

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-3321

john.sauer@ago.mo.gov

Party name: Anne Precythe, et al.

Question 1
Should a court evaluating an as-applied challenge to a state's method of execution based on an inmate's rare and severe medical condition assume that medical personnel are competent to manage his condition and that the procedure will go as intended? Must evidence comparing a state's proposed method of execution with an alternative proposed by an inmate be offered via a single witness, or should a court at summary judgment look to the record as a whole to determine whether a factfinder could conclude that the two methods significantly differ in the risks they pose to the inmate? Does the Eighth Amendment require an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state's proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition?

Question 2
Whether petitioner met his burden under Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), to prove what procedures would be used to administer his proposed alternative method of execution, the severity and duration of pain likely to be produced, and how they compare to the state’s method of execution.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-5554

Denard Stokeling v. United States

Certiorari Granted on April 2, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be April 23, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Brenda G. Bryn

1 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1100

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1100

(954) 356-7436

Party name: Denard Stokeling

Counsel for Respondents

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States

Question Presented

Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-6086

Herman Avery Gundy v. United States

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 25, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due August 2, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Sarah Baumgartel

Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.

52 Duane Street

10th Floor

New York, NY 10007

sarah_baumgartel@fd.org

212-417-8772

Party name: Herman Gundy

Counsel for Respondent

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States

Question 1

(1) Whether convicted sex offenders are "required to register” under the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act ("SORNA”) while in custody, regardless of how long they have until release.

Question 2

(2) Whether all offenders convicted of a qualifying sex offense prior to SORNA's enactment are "required to register" under SORNA no later than August 1, 2008.

Question 3

(3) Whether a defendant violates 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), which requires interstate travel, where his only movement between states occurs while he is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and serving a prison sentence.

Question 4

(4) Whether SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) violates the nondelegation doctrine.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

16-1363

Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Mony Preap, et al.

Certiorari Granted on March 19, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due by June 1, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due by August 6, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

202-514-2217

Party name: Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Michael King Thomas Tan

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

125 Broad St., 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

212-549-2500

mtan@aclu.org

Party name: Mony Preap, et al.

Question Presented

Is a state robbery offense that includes "as an element" the common law requirement of overcoming "victim resistance" categorically a "violent felony" under the only remaining definition of that term in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)(an offense that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another"), if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-988

Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Andrew J. Pincus

Mayer Brown LLP

1999 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 263-3220

apincus@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Lamps Plus, Inc., et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Michele M. Vercoski

McCune Wright Arevalo

3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100

Ontario, CA 91761

909-557-1250

mmv@mccunewright.com

Party name: Frank Varela

Question Presented
In Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. this Court held that a court couldmnot order arbitration to proceed using class procedures unless there was a "contractual basis" for concluding that the parties have "agreed to" class arbitration. 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010) (emphasis in original). This Court explained that courts may not "presume" such consent from "mere silence on the issue of class arbitration" or "from the fact of the parties' agreement to arbitrate." Id. at 685, 687. The arbitration clause at issue here did not mention class arbitration. A divided Ninth Circuit panel majority (Reinhardt & Wardlaw, JJ.) nonetheless inferred mutual assent to class arbitration from such standard language as the parties' agreement that "arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings" and a description of the substantive claims subject to arbitration. App., infra, 3a-4a. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-74

Markle Interests, L.L.C., et al., Petitioners v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Certiorari Granted on January 22, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
This case is joined to No. 17-71
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due by April 23, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Mark Miller

8645 N. Military Trail

Suite 511

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

United States Department of Justice

561-691-5000

mm@pacificlegal.org

Party name: Markle Interests, LLC, et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Timothy S. Bishop

Mayer Brown, LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312-701-7829

tbishop@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Weyerhaeuser Company

Party name: United States

-------------------

John Thorvald Buse

Center for Biological Diversity

1212 Broadway, Suite 800

Oakland, CA 94612

510-844-7125

jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org

Party name: Intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network

Party name: United States

-------------------

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Party name: United States

-------------------

Question One

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Question Two

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-587

Mount Lemmon Fire District v. John Guido, et al.

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 5, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

E. Joshua Rosenkranz

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

51 West 52nd Street

New York, NY 10019

212-506-5000

jrosenkranz@orrick.com

Party name: Mount Lemmon Fire District

Counsel for Respondent

Don T. Awerkamp

Awerkamp & Bonilla, PLC

6891 N. Oracle Road, Suite 155

Tucson, AZ 85704

(520) 798-5282

da@abdilaw.com

Party name: John Guido, et al.

Question Presented

Under the ADEA, does the same twenty-employee minimum that applies to private employers also apply to political subdivisions of a State, as the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held, or does the ADEA apply instead to all State political subdivisions of any size, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-340

New Prime Inc. v. Dominic Oliveira

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be May 14, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 11, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Theodore J. Boutrous

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Los Angeles, CA 90071

213-229-7000

tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

Party name: New Prime Inc.

Counsel for Respondent

Jennifer D. Bennett

Public Justice

555 12th Street, Suite 1230

Oakland, CA 94607

(510) 622-8150

jbennett@publicjustice.net

Party name: Dominic Oliveira

Question 1

1. Whether a dispute over applicability of the FAA's Section 1 exemption is an arbitrability issue that must be resolved in arbitration pursuant to a valid delegation clause.

Question 2

2. Whether the FAA's Section 1 exemption, which applies on its face only to "contracts of employment," is inapplicable to independent contractor agreements.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-647

Rose Mary Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al.

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 21, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 20, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

J. David Breemer

Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 419-7111

Party name: Rose Mary Knick

Counsel for for Respondent

Teresa Ficken Sachs

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin

2000 Market Street

Suite 2300

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-575-2000

tfsachs@mdwcg.com

Party name: Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Question 1

Whether the Court should reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-96 (1985), requiring property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims, as suggested by Justices of this Court? See Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC V. Town of Durham, 136 S. Ct. 1409 (2016) (Thomas, J., joined by Kennedy, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 348 (2005) (Rehnquist, C.J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., concurring in judgment).

Question 2

Alternately, whether Williamson County's ripeness doctrine bars review of takings claims asserting that a law causes an unconstitutional taking on its face as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and now Third Circuits hold, or whether facial claims are exempt from Williamson County, as the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits hold?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-961

Theodore H. Frank et al. v. Paloma Gaos

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Andrew Michael Grossman

Baker & Hostetler LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 861-1697

agrossman@bakerlaw.com

Party name: Theodore H. Frank et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Donald Manwell Falk

Mayer Brown LLP

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300

3000 El Camino Real

Palo Alto, CA 94306

(650) 331-2000

dfalk@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Google LLC

Counsel for Respondent

Kassra Powell Nassiri

Nassiri & Jung LLP

47 Kearny Street, Suite 700

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415) 762-3111

kass@njfirm.com

Party name: Paloma Gaos, et al.

Question Presented
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) permits representatives to maintain a class action where so doing "is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy," and Rule 23(e)(2) requires that a settlement that binds class members must be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." In this case, the Ninth Circuit upheld approval of an $8.5 million settlement that disposed of absent class members' claims while providing them zero monetary relief. Breaking with decisions of the Third Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and Eighth Circuit that require compensating class members before putting class action proceeds to other uses, the Ninth Circuit held that the settlement's award of all net proceeds to third-party organizations selected by the defendant and class counsel was a fair and adequate remedy under the trust-law doctrine of cy pres. The question presented is: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-766

United States v. Jason Daniels Sims

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018
SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.
This case has been joined to No.17-765
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 7, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

Counsel for Respondent

Chris Tarver

Federal Defender Office

1401 W. Capitol, Suite 490

Little Rock, AR 72201

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(501) 324-6113

chris_tarver@fd.org
Party name: Jason Sims

Question Presented

Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as "burglary" under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-765

United States v. Victor J. Stitt, II

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018
SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.
This case has been joined to No.17-766
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 7, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

Counsel for Respondent

Timothy Carl Ivey

Federal Public Defender, N.D. of Ohio

1660 West Second Street, Suite 750

Cleveland, OH 44113

(216) 522-4856

timothy_ivey@fd.org

Party name: Victor Stitt, II

Question Presented

Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as "burglary" under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-7505

Vernon Madison v. Alabama

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 22, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 31, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Bryan A. Stevenson

122 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

(334) 269-1803

Party name: Vernon Madison

Counsel for Respondent

James Roy Houts

Office of the Alabama Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 3000152

Montgomery, AL 36130-0152

3343531513

jhouts@ago.state.al.us

Party name: State of Alabama

Question 1

1. Consistent with the Eighth Amendment, and this Court's decisions in Ford and Panetti, LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: CC-1985-001385.80 CERT. GRANTED 2/26/2018 may the State execute a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him without memory of his commission of the capital offense? See Dunn v. Madison, 138 S. Ct. 9, 12 (Nov. 6, 2017) Ginsburg, J., with Breyer, J., and Sotomayor, J., concurring).

Question 2

2. Do evolving standards of decency and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment bar the execution of a prisoner whose competency has been compromised by vascular dementia and multiple strokes causing severe cognitive dysfunction and a degenerative medical condition which prevents him from remembering the crime for which he was convicted or understanding the circumstances of his scheduled execution?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-71

Weyerhaeuser Company, Petitioner v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Certiorari Granted on January 22, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
This case is joined to No. 17-74
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due April 23, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Timothy S. Bishop

Mayer Brown, LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312-701-7829

tbishop@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Weyerhaeuser Company

Party name: United States

Counsel for Petitioner

John Thorvald Buse

Center for Biological Diversity

1212 Broadway, Suite 800

Oakland, CA 94612

510-844-7125

jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org

Party name: Intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network

Party name: United States

-------------------

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Party name: United States

-------------------

Mark Miller

8645 N. Military Trail

Suite 511

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

United States Department of Justice

561-691-5000

mm@pacificlegal.org

Party name: Markle Interests, LLC, et al.

Question One

1. Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation.

Question Two

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-71

Weyerhaeuser Company, Petitioner v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Certiorari Granted on January 22, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
This case is joined to No. 17-74
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due April 23, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Timothy S. Bishop

Mayer Brown, LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312-701-7829

tbishop@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Weyerhaeuser Company

Party name: United States

Counsel for Petitioner

John Thorvald Buse

Center for Biological Diversity

1212 Broadway, Suite 800

Oakland, CA 94612

510-844-7125

jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org

Party name: Intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network

Party name: United States

-------------------

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Party name: United States

-------------------

Mark Miller

8645 N. Military Trail

Suite 511

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

United States Department of Justice

561-691-5000

mm@pacificlegal.org

Party name: Markle Interests, LLC, et al.

Question One

1. Whether the Endangered Species Act prohibits designation of private land as unoccupied critical habitat that is neither habitat nor essential to species conservation.

Question Two

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-7505

Vernon Madison v. Alabama

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 22, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 31, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Bryan A. Stevenson

122 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

(334) 269-1803

Party name: Vernon Madison

Counsel for Respondent

James Roy Houts

Office of the Alabama Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

P.O. Box 3000152

Montgomery, AL 36130-0152

3343531513

jhouts@ago.state.al.us

Party name: State of Alabama

Question 1

1. Consistent with the Eighth Amendment, and this Court's decisions in Ford and Panetti, LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: CC-1985-001385.80 CERT. GRANTED 2/26/2018 may the State execute a prisoner whose mental disability leaves him without memory of his commission of the capital offense? See Dunn v. Madison, 138 S. Ct. 9, 12 (Nov. 6, 2017) Ginsburg, J., with Breyer, J., and Sotomayor, J., concurring).

Question 2

2. Do evolving standards of decency and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment bar the execution of a prisoner whose competency has been compromised by vascular dementia and multiple strokes causing severe cognitive dysfunction and a degenerative medical condition which prevents him from remembering the crime for which he was convicted or understanding the circumstances of his scheduled execution?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-765

United States v. Victor J. Stitt, II

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018
SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.
This case has been joined to No.17-766
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 7, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

Counsel for Respondent

Timothy Carl Ivey

Federal Public Defender, N.D. of Ohio

1660 West Second Street, Suite 750

Cleveland, OH 44113

(216) 522-4856

timothy_ivey@fd.org

Party name: Victor Stitt, II

Question Presented

Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as "burglary" under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-766

United States v. Jason Daniels Sims

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018
SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.
This case has been joined to No.17-765
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 7, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(202) 514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

Counsel for Respondent

Chris Tarver

Federal Defender Office

1401 W. Capitol, Suite 490

Little Rock, AR 72201

Washington, DC 20530-0001

(501) 324-6113

chris_tarver@fd.org
Party name: Jason Sims

Question Presented

Whether burglary of a nonpermanent or mobile structure that is adapted or used for overnight accommodation can qualify as "burglary" under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii).

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-961

Theodore H. Frank et al. v. Paloma Gaos

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Andrew Michael Grossman

Baker & Hostetler LLP

1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 861-1697

agrossman@bakerlaw.com

Party name: Theodore H. Frank et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Donald Manwell Falk

Mayer Brown LLP

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300

3000 El Camino Real

Palo Alto, CA 94306

(650) 331-2000

dfalk@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Google LLC

Counsel for Respondent

Kassra Powell Nassiri

Nassiri & Jung LLP

47 Kearny Street, Suite 700

San Francisco, CA 94108

(415) 762-3111

kass@njfirm.com

Party name: Paloma Gaos, et al.

Question Presented
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) permits representatives to maintain a class action where so doing "is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy," and Rule 23(e)(2) requires that a settlement that binds class members must be "fair, reasonable, and adequate." In this case, the Ninth Circuit upheld approval of an $8.5 million settlement that disposed of absent class members' claims while providing them zero monetary relief. Breaking with decisions of the Third Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and Eighth Circuit that require compensating class members before putting class action proceeds to other uses, the Ninth Circuit held that the settlement's award of all net proceeds to third-party organizations selected by the defendant and class counsel was a fair and adequate remedy under the trust-law doctrine of cy pres. The question presented is: Whether, or in what circumstances, a cy pres award of class action proceeds that provides no direct relief to class members supports class certification and comports with the requirement that a settlement binding class members must be "fair, reasonable, and adequate."

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-647

Rose Mary Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, et al.

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 21, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 20, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

J. David Breemer

Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 419-7111

Party name: Rose Mary Knick

Counsel for for Respondent

Teresa Ficken Sachs

Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin

2000 Market Street

Suite 2300

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215-575-2000

tfsachs@mdwcg.com

Party name: Township of Scott, Pennsylvania

Question 1

Whether the Court should reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-96 (1985), requiring property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims, as suggested by Justices of this Court? See Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC V. Town of Durham, 136 S. Ct. 1409 (2016) (Thomas, J., joined by Kennedy, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 348 (2005) (Rehnquist, C.J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., concurring in judgment).

Question 2

Alternately, whether Williamson County's ripeness doctrine bars review of takings claims asserting that a law causes an unconstitutional taking on its face as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and now Third Circuits hold, or whether facial claims are exempt from Williamson County, as the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits hold?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-340

New Prime Inc. v. Dominic Oliveira

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be May 14, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 11, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Theodore J. Boutrous

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Los Angeles, CA 90071

213-229-7000

tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

Party name: New Prime Inc.

Counsel for Respondent

Jennifer D. Bennett

Public Justice

555 12th Street, Suite 1230

Oakland, CA 94607

(510) 622-8150

jbennett@publicjustice.net

Party name: Dominic Oliveira

Question 1

1. Whether a dispute over applicability of the FAA's Section 1 exemption is an arbitrability issue that must be resolved in arbitration pursuant to a valid delegation clause.

Question 2

2. Whether the FAA's Section 1 exemption, which applies on its face only to "contracts of employment," is inapplicable to independent contractor agreements.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-587

Mount Lemmon Fire District v. John Guido, et al.

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 7, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due July 5, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

E. Joshua Rosenkranz

Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

51 West 52nd Street

New York, NY 10019

212-506-5000

jrosenkranz@orrick.com

Party name: Mount Lemmon Fire District

Counsel for Respondent

Don T. Awerkamp

Awerkamp & Bonilla, PLC

6891 N. Oracle Road, Suite 155

Tucson, AZ 85704

(520) 798-5282

da@abdilaw.com

Party name: John Guido, et al.

Question Presented

Under the ADEA, does the same twenty-employee minimum that applies to private employers also apply to political subdivisions of a State, as the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits have held, or does the ADEA apply instead to all State political subdivisions of any size, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-74

Markle Interests, L.L.C., et al., Petitioners v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Certiorari Granted on January 22, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
This case is joined to No. 17-71
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due by April 23, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Mark Miller

8645 N. Military Trail

Suite 511

Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410

United States Department of Justice

561-691-5000

mm@pacificlegal.org

Party name: Markle Interests, LLC, et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Timothy S. Bishop

Mayer Brown, LLP

71 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

312-701-7829

tbishop@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Weyerhaeuser Company

Party name: United States

-------------------

John Thorvald Buse

Center for Biological Diversity

1212 Broadway, Suite 800

Oakland, CA 94612

510-844-7125

jbuse@biologicaldiversity.org

Party name: Intervenor-respondents Center for Biological Diversity and Gulf Restoration Network

Party name: United States

-------------------

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, et al.

Party name: United States

-------------------

Question One

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Question Two

2. Whether an agency decision not to exclude an area from critical habitat because of the economic impact of designation is subject to judicial review.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-988

Lamps Plus Inc. v. Varela

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Andrew J. Pincus

Mayer Brown LLP

1999 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

(202) 263-3220

apincus@mayerbrown.com

Party name: Lamps Plus, Inc., et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Michele M. Vercoski

McCune Wright Arevalo

3281 E. Guasti Road, Suite 100

Ontario, CA 91761

909-557-1250

mmv@mccunewright.com

Party name: Frank Varela

Question Presented
In Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp. this Court held that a court couldmnot order arbitration to proceed using class procedures unless there was a "contractual basis" for concluding that the parties have "agreed to" class arbitration. 559 U.S. 662, 684 (2010) (emphasis in original). This Court explained that courts may not "presume" such consent from "mere silence on the issue of class arbitration" or "from the fact of the parties' agreement to arbitrate." Id. at 685, 687. The arbitration clause at issue here did not mention class arbitration. A divided Ninth Circuit panel majority (Reinhardt & Wardlaw, JJ.) nonetheless inferred mutual assent to class arbitration from such standard language as the parties' agreement that "arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings" and a description of the substantive claims subject to arbitration. App., infra, 3a-4a. The question presented is: Whether the Federal Arbitration Act forecloses a state-law interpretation of an arbitration agreement that would authorize class arbitration based solely on general language commonly used in arbitration agreements.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

16-1363

Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. v. Mony Preap, et al.

Certiorari Granted on March 19, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due by June 1, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due by August 6, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

202-514-2217

Party name: Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al.

Counsel for Respondent

Michael King Thomas Tan

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation

125 Broad St., 18th Floor

New York, NY 10004

212-549-2500

mtan@aclu.org

Party name: Mony Preap, et al.

Question Presented

Is a state robbery offense that includes "as an element" the common law requirement of overcoming "victim resistance" categorically a "violent felony" under the only remaining definition of that term in the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i)(an offense that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another"), if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance?

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-6086

Herman Avery Gundy v. United States

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due May 25, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due August 2, 2018.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Sarah Baumgartel

Federal Defenders of New York, Inc.

52 Duane Street

10th Floor

New York, NY 10007

sarah_baumgartel@fd.org

212-417-8772

Party name: Herman Gundy

Counsel for Respondent

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States

Question 1

(1) Whether convicted sex offenders are "required to register” under the federal Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act ("SORNA”) while in custody, regardless of how long they have until release.

Question 2

(2) Whether all offenders convicted of a qualifying sex offense prior to SORNA's enactment are "required to register" under SORNA no later than August 1, 2008.

Question 3

(3) Whether a defendant violates 18 U.S.C. § 2250(a), which requires interstate travel, where his only movement between states occurs while he is in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons and serving a prison sentence.

Question 4

(4) Whether SORNA's delegation of authority to the Attorney General to issue regulations under 42 U.S.C. § 16913(d) violates the nondelegation doctrine.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-5554

Denard Stokeling v. United States

Certiorari Granted on April 2, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be April 23, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be May 23, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Brenda G. Bryn

1 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 1100

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1100

(954) 356-7436

Party name: Denard Stokeling

Counsel for Respondents

Noel J. Francisco

Solicitor General

United States Department of Justice

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530-0001

202-514-2217

SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Party name: United States

Question Presented

Whether a criminal alien becomes exempt from mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. 1226(c) if, after the alien is released from criminal custody, the Department of Homeland Security does not take him into immigration custody immediately.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

17-8151

Bucklew v. Precythe

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018
The date for argument has not yet been set.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Petitioner or Neither Party are due within 45 days of grant of certiorari, which would be June 14, 2018.
- Amicus Briefs in support of Respondents are due within 30 days of the filing of the Petitioner's Merits Brief, which would be July 14, 2018 if the Petitioner files on its deadline.
PRINT FRIENDLY
Contact Us

Counsel for Petitioner

Robert N. Hochman

Sidley Austin, LLP

One South Dearborn Street

Chicago, IL 60603

(312) 853-2936

rhochman@sidley.com

Party name: Russell Bucklew

Counsel for Respondent

D. John Sauer

Office of the Attorney General

Supreme Court Building, 207 West High Street

P.O. Box 899

Jefferson City, MO 65102

573-751-3321

john.sauer@ago.mo.gov

Party name: Anne Precythe, et al.

Question 1
Should a court evaluating an as-applied challenge to a state's method of execution based on an inmate's rare and severe medical condition assume that medical personnel are competent to manage his condition and that the procedure will go as intended? Must evidence comparing a state's proposed method of execution with an alternative proposed by an inmate be offered via a single witness, or should a court at summary judgment look to the record as a whole to determine whether a factfinder could conclude that the two methods significantly differ in the risks they pose to the inmate? Does the Eighth Amendment require an inmate to prove an adequate alternative method of execution when raising an as-applied challenge to the state's proposed method of execution based on his rare and severe medical condition?

Question 2
Whether petitioner met his burden under Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), to prove what procedures would be used to administer his proposed alternative method of execution, the severity and duration of pain likely to be produced, and how they compare to the state’s method of execution.

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Note: Ths data is unofficial.Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

Telephone Number

(888) 557-2152
(617) 505-1088

Message Us Now

PRINT@AMICUS.PRESS

Address Location

1089 Commonwealth Avenue,
Suite 283
Boston, MA 02215

View Map

Amicus Brief Center at the Supreme Court Press

AMICUS BRIEFS

Pending merits cases and the info required to execute an amicus filing. Check Supreme Court docket for official dates and addresses.

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018

The date for argument has not yet been set.

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Question 1

Question 2

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018

The date for argument has not yet been set.

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Question 1

Question 2

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018

The date for argument has not yet been set.

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Question 1

Question 2

Question 3

Question 4

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on April 2, 2018

The date for argument has not yet been set.

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondents

Question Presented

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018

The date for argument has not yet been set.

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Question Presented

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on April 30, 2018

The date for argument has not yet been set.

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Counsel for Respondent

Question Presented

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018

SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.

This case has been joined to No.17-765

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Question Presented

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on April 23, 2018

SET FOR ARGUMENT on October 2, 2017.

This case has been joined to No.17-766

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Question Presented

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on March 5, 2018

The date for argument has not yet been set.

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for for Respondent

Question 1

Question 2

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018

The date for argument has not yet been set.

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Question Presented

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on February 26, 2018

The date for argument has not yet been set.

Counsel for Petitioner

Counsel for Respondent

Question 1

Question 2

Contact the Supreme Court Press at (888) 557-2152 to Schedule Service

Certiorari Granted on January 22, 2018

Amicus Brief Center at
the Supreme Court Press