The U.S. Supreme Court, which started its term on October 7, says it may announce opinions on November 22.
Here’s a list of cases the court has heard this term, in chronological order, that could see decisions announced next week.
DREW ANGERER/AFP via Getty Images
Williams v. Washington
The case poses the question of whether plaintiffs must exhaust state administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit in state court. It stems from allegations that the Alabama Department of Labor, headed by Secretary Fitzgerald Washington, violated due process rights by delaying unemployment benefits and failing to provide timely hearings.
Royal Canin USA Inc. v. Wullschleger
This case is considering whether plaintiffs can amend lawsuits, remove federal issues and force a return to state court after removal from federal court. Anastasia Wullschleger filed a class-action complaint in Missouri state court against pet food provider Royal Canin and Nestle Purina, alleging their prescription for specialized dog food misled customers. After the defendants removed the case from federal court, plaintiffs amended their complaint to drop references to federal law.
Garland v. VanDerStok
Garland v. VanDerStok is a challenge to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ regulation that places new requirements on previously untraceable “ghost guns” assembled by the buyer. The parts are typically purchased online for home assembly into an operational firearm.
Lackey v. Stinnie
The case is exploring whether obtaining a preliminary injunction qualifies as a prevailing party eligible for attorney’s fees under federal civil rights law.
Glossip v. Oklahoma
Richard Glossip was sentenced to death for the 1997 murder of Barry Van Treese. Justin Sneed was, as the state said, an “indispensable witness” who heavily impacted Glossip’s sentencing. Glossip has asked the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals to set aside his conviction, given that Sneed had, as the state said, failed to disclose the truth about Sneed’s psychiatric condition. The case considers whether the failure to correct false testimony by the witness violates due process, and whether that requires a reversal when the death penalty is considered.
Medical Marijuana v. Horn
The case is considering whether economic losses tied to personal injuries can be considered injuries to “business or property” under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The case centers on a truck driver who lost his job after consuming a CBD product that falsely claimed to be THC-free, leading to a positive drug test and financial damages.
Bouarfa v. Mayorkas
The case is examining whether a visa petitioner can seek judicial review when an approved petition is revoked based on nondiscretionary criteria.
Bufkin v. McDonough
This case considers whether the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must verify that the benefit of the doubt rule is properly applied when evaluating veterans’ benefit claims.
San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The case is exploring if the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to include broad prohibitions in discharge permits that could result in enforcement for water quality violations without clear discharge limits. San Francisco argues that the EPA’s permit conditions, including narrative restrictions and requirements to revise its sewer overflow plan, exceed the agency’s authority and lack the clarity needed for compliance.
Wisconsin Bell v. United States ex rel. Heath
The case considers whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) “E-rate” programs are “claims” under the False Claims Act.
Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra
This case explores whether the phrase “entitled … to benefits” in the Medicare Act means the same thing for Medicare Part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, “such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received,” according to the court docket.
E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera
The case stems from plaintiffs, who were sales representatives, claiming that they worked around 60-hour weeks and were not paid overtime, but solely on commission. The question presented in the case is “whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is mere preponderance of the evidence” or convincing evidence.
Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank
The case considers whether risk disclosures are “false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm,” according to the court docket.
Velazquez v. Garland
The central question of the case is if a noncitizen’s voluntary departure deadline falls on a weekend or public holiday, does filing a motion to reopen on the next business day satisfy the requirements to avoid penalties for failing to depart?
Delligatti v. United States
The court is considering whether a crime that requires “proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,” according to the court docket.
Nvidia Corp v. E. Ohman
The case examines the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and what pleading standards apply to show knowledge of intent for securities-fraud claims related to internal company documents.
