Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case Tracker
The Court, in plain English
Find a case
Topics
Home
/
Calendar
/
April 2013
Argument sitting
April 2013 oral arguments
←
March 2013
Full calendar
October 2013
→
12 cases across 6 argument days
·
Arguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
22
23
24
25
26
29
30
Argument day
More than one case
Six argument days, April 15 to April 24, 2013.
Six of them have more than one case.
15
Monday, April 15, 2013
2 cases
Judges in plea negotiations
United States v. Anthony Davila
Did the magistrate judge's improper participation in a plea discussion warrant vacating the defendant's guilty plea?
Decided
Jun 13, 2013
12-167
Patents on human genes
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Does §101 of the Patent Act allow patents on human genes?
Decided
Jun 13, 2013
12-398
16
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
2 cases
Truck access to ports
American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, California
1. Can a municipal government limit the activities of motor carriers when it acts as a market participant, as opposed to a market regulator? 2. Can a municipal government bar federally licensed motor carriers from access to a port?
Decided
Jun 13, 2013
11-798
Native American adoption rights
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, a Minor Child Under the Age of Fourteen Years
1. Can a non-custodial parent invoke ICWA to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law? 2. Does ICWA define "parent" to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent?
Decided
Jun 25, 2013
12-399
17
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
2 cases
Right to remain silent
Genovevo Salinas v. Texas
Does the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights?
Decided
Jun 17, 2013
12-246
Federal sex offender registration
United States v. Anthony James Kebodeaux
1. Did the court of appeals err in conducting its constitutional analysis on the premise that Kebodeaux was not under a federal registration obligation until SORNA was enacted, when pre SORNA federal law also obligated him to register as a sex offender? 2. Did the court of appeals erred in holding that Congress lacks the Article I authority to provide for criminal penalties as applied to a person who was convicted of a sex offense under federal law and completed his criminal sentence before SORNA was enacted?
Decided
Jun 24, 2013
12-418
22
Monday, April 22, 2013
2 cases
Jacqueline Hillman v. Judy A. Maretta
Does federal law preempt a Virginia state law that revokes a spouse's beneficiary designation in a Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance policy upon divorce?
Decided
Jun 3, 2013
11-1221
Federal grants and free speech
Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
Does a requirement that non-governmental organizations institute an explicit anti-prostitution policy in order to receive federal funding violate the First Amendment?
Decided
Jun 20, 2013
12-10
23
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
2 cases
State limits on shared water
Tarrant Regional Water District v. Rudolf John Herrmann
1. Did Congress' approval of an interstate water compact illustrate congressional intent to allow state laws to interfere with interstate commerce in water? 2. Does the Compact preempt protectionist state laws that restrict state access to water to which they are entitled under the Compact?
Decided
Jun 13, 2013
11-889
Extortion of government recommendations
Giridhar C. Sekhar v. United States
Is the "recommendation" of an attorney, who is a salaried employee of a governmental agency, intangible property that can be the subject of an extortion attempt under the Hobbs Act?
Decided
Jun 26, 2013
12-357
24
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
2 cases
Proof of workplace retaliation
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Naiel Nassar
Does the retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 require a plaintiff to prove that an employer would not have taken an action but for the existence of an improper motive, or does the provision require only proof that the employer had mixed motives for taking an action?
Decided
Jun 24, 2013
12-484
Retroactive defense changes
Linda Metrish, Warden v. Burt Lancaster
1. Was the Michigan Supreme Court's abolition of the diminished capacity defense an "unexpected and indefensible" change? 2. Did the Michigan Court of Appeals err in retroactively applying the change to Lancaster's case?
Decided
May 20, 2013
12-547