Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case Tracker

Argument sitting

April 2019 oral arguments

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

1 case
DecidedIancu v. BrunettiWhether Section 1052(a)'s prohibition on the federal registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" marks is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.Decided18-302

2 cases
DecidedParker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. NewtonWhether, under OCSLA, state law is borrowed as the applicable federal law only when there is a gap in the coverage of federal law, as the Fifth Circuit has held, or whenever state law pertains to the subject matter of a lawsuit and · is not preempted by inconsistent federal law, as the Ninth Circuit has held.Decided18-389DecidedNorth Carolina Dept. of Revenue v. Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family TrustDoes the Due Process Clause prohibit states from taxing trusts based on trust beneficiaries' in-state residency?Decided18-457

1 case
DecidedUnited States v. DavisWhether the subsection-specific definition of "crime of violence" in 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(3)(B), which applies only in the limited context of a federal criminal prosecution for possessing, using, or carrying a firearm in connection with acts comprising such a crime, is unconstitutionally vague.Decided18-431

1 case
DecidedFood Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media1. Does the statutory term "confidential" in FOIA Exemption 4 bear its ordinary meaning, thus requiring the Government to withhold all "commercial or financial information" that is confidentially held and not publicly disseminated-regardless of whether a party establishes substantial competitive harm from disclosure-which would resolve at least five circuit splits? 2. Alternatively, if the Court retains the substantial-competitive-harm test, is that test satisfied when the requested information could be potentially useful to a competitor (as the First and Tenth Circuits have held), or must the party opposing disclosure establish with near certainty a defined competitive harm like lost market share (as the Ninth and D.C. Circuits have held, and as the Eighth Circuit required here)?Decided18-481

2 cases
DecidedRehaif v. United StatesWhether the "knowingly" provision of § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, as has been urged by then-Judge, now Justice Gorsuch, or whether it applies only to the possession element, as has been held by the courts.Decided17-9560DecidedDepartment of Commerce v. New York1. WHETHER THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE’S DECISION TO ADD A CITIZENSHIP QUESTION TO THE DECENNIAL CENSUS VIOLATED THE ENUMERATION CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, ART. I, §2, CL. 3. 2. Whether the district court erred in enjoining the Secretary of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the Secretary's decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq. 3. Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker-including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials-without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.Decided18-966

2 cases
DecidedQuarles v. United StatesWhether (as two circuits hold) Taylor's definition of generic burglary requires proof that intent to commit a crime was present at the time of unlawful entry or first unlawful remaining, or whether (as the court below and three other circuits hold) it is enough that the defendant formed the intent to commit a crime at any time while "remaining in" the building or structure.Decided17-778DecidedTaggart v. LorenzenWhether, under the Bankruptcy Code, a creditor's good-faith belief that the discharge injunction does not apply precludes a finding of civil contempt.Decided18-489