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

Argument sitting

April 2019 oral arguments

13 cases across 6 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Six argument days, April 15 to April 24, 2019. Six of them have more than one case.

2 cases
Offensive words in trademarksIancu 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.Decided 18-302Misleading takeover statementsEmulex Corp. v. VarjabedianWhether the Ninth Circuit correctly held, in express disagreement with five other courts of appeals, that Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 supports an inferred private right of action based on a negligent misstatement.Decided 18-459

2 cases
State laws on offshore drillingParker 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.Decided 18-389State taxes on trust incomeNorth 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?Decided 18-457

2 cases
Vague gun crime definitionsUnited 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.Decided 18-431Fake evidence lawsuit deadlinesMcDonough v. SmithWhether the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim based on fabrication of evidence in criminal proceedings begins to run when those proceedings terminate in the defendant's favor (as the majority of circuits has held) or whether it begins to run when the defendant becomes aware of the tainted evidence and its improper use (as the Second Circuit held below).Decided 18-485

2 cases
Public release of business dataFood 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)?Decided 18-481Reporting discrimination before suingFort Bend County v. DavisWhether Title VII's administrative exhaustion requirement is a jurisdictional?Decided 18-525

3 cases
Knowing who can't own gunsRehaif 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.Decided 17-9560Blood draws without warrantsMitchell v. WisconsinWhether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.Decided 18-6210Citizenship question on censusDepartment 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.Decided 18-966

2 cases
When burglary intent formsQuarles 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.Decided 17-778Debt collection after bankruptcyTaggart 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.Decided 18-489