This is a list of cases before the United States Supreme Court that the Court has agreed to hear and has not yet decided.[1] [2] [3]
Future argument dates are in parentheses; arguments in these cases have been scheduled, but have not, and potentially may not, take place.
| Case | Docket no. | Question(s) presented | Certiorari granted | Oral argument | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra | 23-715 | Whether the phrase "entitled ... to benefits," used twice in the same sentence of 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 | |||
| Bouarfa v. Mayorkas | 23-583 | Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of nondiscretionary criteria. | |||
| Bufkin v. McDonough | 23-713 | Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in was properly applied during the claims process in order to satisfy, which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule. | |||
| City and County of San Francisco v. EPA | 23-753 | Whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform. | |||
| Delligatti v. United States | 23-825 | 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. | |||
| Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc. | 23-900 | Whether an award of the “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act can include an order for the defendant to disgorge the distinct profits of legally separate non-party corporate affiliates. | |||
| E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera | 23-217 | Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. | |||
| Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank | 23-980 | 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. | |||
| FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, L.L.C. | 23-1038 | Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in setting aside FDA’s denial orders of respondents' applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious. | |||
| Feliciano v. Department of Transportation | 23-861 | Whether a federal civilian employee called or ordered to active duty under a provision of law during a national emergency is entitled to differential pay even if the duty is not directly connected to the national emergency. | |||
| Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton | 23-1122 | Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done. | |||
| Garland v. VanDerStok | 23-852 | (1) Whether “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 is a “firearm” regulated by the Gun Control Act of 1968; and (2) whether “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver” that is “designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver” under 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) is a “frame or receiver” regulated by the act. | |||
| Glossip v. Oklahoma | 22-7466 | (1) Whether the State's suppression of the key prosecution witness's admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness's false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959); and (2) whether the entirety of the suppressed evidence must be considered when assessing the materiality of Brady and Napue claims. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995); and (3) whether due process of law requires reversal, where a capital conviction is so infected with errors that the State no longer seeks to defend it. See Escobar v. Texas, 143 S. Ct. 557 (2023) (mem.); and (4) whether the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' holding that the Oklahoma Post-Conviction Procedure Act precluded post-conviction relief is an adequate and independent state-law ground for the judgment. | |||
| Hewitt v. United States | 23-1002 23-1150 | Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the FSA’s enactment when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the FSA’s enactment. | |||
| Kousisis v. United States | 23-909 | (1) Whether deception to induce a commercial exchange can constitute mail or wire fraud, even if inflicting economic harm on the alleged victim was not the object of the scheme; (2) whether a sovereign's statutory, regulatory, or policy interest is a property interest when compliance is a material term of payment for goods or services; and (3) whether all contract rights are "property." | |||
| Lackey v. Stinnie | 23-621 | (1) Whether a party must obtain a ruling that conclusively decides the merits in its favor, as opposed to merely predicting a likelihood of later success, to prevail on the merits under ; and (2) whether a party must obtain an enduring change in the parties' legal relationship from a judicial act, as opposed to a non-judicial event that moots the case, to prevail under Section 1988. | |||
| Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn | 23-365 | Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to "business or property by reason of" the defendant's acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. | |||
| 23-970 | (1) Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents; and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the Act's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact. | ||||
| Republic of Hungary v. Simon | 23-867 | (1) Whether historical commingling of assets suffices to establish that proceeds of seized property have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; (2) whether a plaintiff must make out a valid claim that an exception to the FSIA applies at the pleading stage, rather than merely raising a plausible inference; and (3) whether a sovereign defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to affirmatively disprove that the proceeds of property taken in violation of international law have a commercial nexus with the United States under the expropriation exception to the FSIA. | |||
| Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger | 23-677 | (1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to ; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's remaining state-law claims pursuant to . | |||
| Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County | 23-975 | Whether the National Environmental Policy Act requires an agency to study environmental impacts beyond the proximate effects of the action over which the agency has regulatory authority. | |||
| Stanley v. City of Sanford | 23-997 | Whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a former employee — who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed — loses her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job. | |||
| United States v. Miller | 23-824 | Whether a bankruptcy trustee may avoid a debtor’s tax payment to the United States under when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy. | |||
| United States v. Skrmetti | 23-477 | Whether Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow "a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor's sex" or to treat "purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity," violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. | |||
| Velazquez v. Garland | 23-929 | When a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart? | |||
| Williams v. Washington | 23-191 | Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under in state court. | |||
| Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Todd Heath | 23-1127 | Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are "claims" under the False Claims Act. |