A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), creates an implied private right of action.
A case in which the Court will decide whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim.
A case in which the Court will decide whether limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications.”
A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.
A case in which the Court will decide whether its decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only prospective relief when the plaintiff has previously been punished under the challenged law, and whether such a bar applies even when the plaintiff never had access to federal habeas review.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court has jurisdiction to hear a First Amendment challenge to a state investigatory subpoena when the subject of the subpoena has demonstrated an objectively reasonable chilling effect on its constitutional rights, or whether such claims must instead first be adjudicated in state court.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court of appeals must defer to the Board of Immigration Appeals’ judgment that a given set of undisputed facts does not demonstrate mistreatment severe enough to constitute “persecution” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42).
A case in which the Court will decide whether an internet service provider can be held liable for copyright infringement simply for knowing about ongoing infringement by users and not terminating their accounts, and whether such knowledge alone is enough to find willful infringement under the Copyright Act.
A case in which the Court will decide whether district courts may consider sentencing disparities created by the First Step Act’s nonretroactive reduction of mandatory minimum penalties—which can result in defendants serving sentences decades longer than those imposed for identical conduct today—when determining whether "extraordinary and compelling reasons" warrant a sentence reduction under the compassionate release statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
A case in which the Court will decide whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(1)(A) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. §2255.
A case in which the Court will decide whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
A case in which the Court will decide whether an order denying a government contractor’s claim of derivative sovereign immunity under Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co. is immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine, which permits interlocutory appeals of certain non-final orders that conclusively determine important issues separate from the merits.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the International Emergency Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. § 1701 (“IEEPA”), permits the president to impose tariffs.
A case in which the Court will decide whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(c)(1) imposes any time limit to set aside a void default judgment for lack of personal jurisdiction.
A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court’s final judgment must be vacated if it is later determined that the case lacked complete diversity at the time of removal from state court, and whether a plaintiff can defeat diversity jurisdiction after removal by amending the complaint to assert a viable claim against a nondiverse defendant.
A case in which the Court will decide whether federal contractors enjoy immunity from state-law tort suits because they are integrated into combat operations, even when they violate military orders and contractual duties.
A case in which the Court will decide whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
A case in which the Court will decide whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring.
A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether a rule requiring dismissal of repeat claims in state prisoner habeas petitions also applies to repeat claims in federal prisoner motions to vacate their sentences; and (2) whether it has jurisdiction to review lower court decisions allowing or denying federal prisoners permission to file repeat challenges to their sentences.
A case in which the Court will decide whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA) is penal for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause.
Saba Shehzadi
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
MaPepa
Footnote Kavanaugh
Joe Belize
clement
Lyle Broadhead
What happened to this podcast? Why are there no new episodes?
David Moran
53:03 has been written in history, Justice Thomas asks a question for the first time since 2016!