Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case Tracker

Argument sitting

April 2018 oral arguments

8 cases across 6 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern

1 case
DecidedWisconsin 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).Decided17-530

1 case
DecidedSouth Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.Should this Court abrogate Quill's sales-tax-only, physical-presence requirement?Decided17-494

2 cases
DecidedLagos 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?Decided16-1519DecidedWashington 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.Decided17-269

2 cases
DecidedRaymond 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.Decided17-130DecidedWescley 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."?Decided17-459

1 case
DecidedGreg 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.Decided17-586

1 case
DecidedTrump 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.Decided17-965