Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case TrackerThe Court, in plain English

Argument sitting

April 2018 oral arguments

12 cases across 6 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Six argument days, April 16 to April 25, 2018. Five of them have more than one case.

2 cases
Lost profits from overseas patentsWesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp.Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that lost profits arising from prohibited combinations occurring outside of the United States are categorically unavailable in cases where patent infringement is proven under 35 U.S.C.§ 271(f).Decided 16-1011Railroad taxes on employee stockWisconsin Central Ltd. v. United StatesWhether stock that a railroad transfers to its employees is taxable under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act, 26 U.S.C. § 3231(e)(l).Decided 17-530

2 cases
False asset claims in bankruptcyLamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. ApplingCan a statement regarding a specific asset be a “statement respecting the debtor’s . . . financial condition” under section 523(a)(2)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, and if so, when?Decided 16-1215Sales tax on online salesSouth Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.Should this Court abrogate Quill's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement?Decided 17-494

2 cases
Restitution for private investigationsLagos v. United StatesDoes the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(4), cover costs that were neither “required nor requested” by the government, including costs incurred for the victim’s own purposes and that were not prompted by any official government action?Decided 16-1519Tribal fishing rightsWashington v. United States1. Whether the treaty "right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations . . . in common with all citizens" guaranteed "that the number of fish would always be sufficient to provide a 'moderate living' to the Tribes."? 2. Whether the district court erred in dismissing the State's equitable defenses against the federal government where the federal government signed these treaties in the 1850's, for decades told the State to design culverts a particular way, and then filed suit in 2001 claiming that the culvert design it provided violated the treaties it signed. 3. Whether the district court's injunction violates federalism and comity principles by requiring Washington to replace hundreds of culverts, at a cost of several billion dollars, when many of the replacements will have no impact on salmon and Plaintiffs showed no clear connection between culvert replacement and tribal fisheries.Decided 17-269

3 cases
How SEC judges are appointedRaymond J. Lucia, et al., Petitioners v. Securities and Exchange CommissionWhether administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission are Officers of the United States within the meaning of the Appointments Clause.Decided 17-130Immigration hearing noticesWescley Fonseca Pereira, Petitioner v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III, Attorney GeneralWhether, to trigger the stop-time rule by serving a "notice to appear," the government must "specify" the items listed in the definition of a "notice to appear," including "[t]he time and place at which the proceedings will be held."?Decided 17-459Explaining sentence reductionsAdaucto Chavez-Meza, Petitioner v. United StatesWhen a district court decides not to grant a proportional sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), must it provide some explanation for its decision when the reasons are not otherwise apparent from the record, as the United States Courts of Appeals for the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits have held, or can it issue its decision without any explanation whatsoever so long as it is issued on a pre-printed form order containing boilerplate language providing that the court has "tak[en] into account the policy statement set forth at U.S.S.G. § lBl.10 and the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to the extent that they are applicable," as the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Circuits have held?Decided 17-5639

2 cases
Courts reviewing foreign lawsAnimal Science Products, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al.Whether a court may exercise independent review of an appearing foreign sovereign's interpretation of its domestic law (as held by the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits), or whether a court is "bound to defer" to a foreign government's legal statement, as a matter of international comity, whenever the foreign government appears before the court (as held by the opinion below in accord with the Ninth Circuit).Decided 16-1220Race in voting mapsGreg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al., Appellants v. Shannon Perez, et al.1. Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas' duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw state congressional districts unless the Governor called a special legislative session to redraw the congressional map within three days. 2. Whether the Texas Legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted a redistricting plan originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect. 3. Whether the Texas Legislature engaged in intentional vote dilution when it adopted Congressional District 27 in 2013 after the district court found, in 2012, that CD27 did not support a plausible claim of racially discriminatory purpose and did not dilute Hispanic voting strength because it was not possible to create an additional Hispanic opportunity district in the region;? 4. Whether the Legislature engaged in racial gerrymandering in Congressional District 35 when it simply adopted the district unchanged as part of the court-ordered remedial plan.Decided 17-586

1 case
Presidential travel banTrump v. Hawaii1. Whether respondents' challenge to the President's suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable. 2. Whether the Proclamation is a lawful exercise of the President's authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad. 3. Whether the global injunction is impermissibly overbroad. 4. Whether Proclamation No. 9645 violates the Establishment Clause.Decided 17-965