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

Argument sitting

December 2015 oral arguments

8 cases across 5 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Five argument days, December 1 to December 9, 2015. Three of them have more than one case.

2 cases
Federal courts and securities lawsuitsMerrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Greg ManningDoes the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 provide for federal jurisdiction over state law claims seeking to establish liability based on violations of the federal Act?Decided 14-1132Pausing lawsuit deadlinesMenominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin v. United StatesDid the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit properly hold that there were no extraordinary circumstances present in this case that would have prevented the statute of limitations from running?Decided 14-510

1 case
State health plan reportingAlfred Gobeille, in His Official Capacity as Chair of the Vermont Green Mountain Care Board v. Liberty Mutual Insurance CompanyDo the reporting requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 preempt a Vermont state statute regarding reporting requirements as applied to a self-insured employee health plan?Decided 14-181

2 cases
Tribal court authorityDollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw IndiansWhether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including claims based on alleged torts committed on tribal land?Decided 13-1496Suing states across state linesFranchise Tax Board of California v. Gilbert P. Hyatt1. Can Nevada refuse to extend to other states haled into Nevada courts the same immunities Nevada receives in those courts? 2. Should Nevada v. Hall , a case in which the Supreme Court held that a state could be haled into the court of another state without its consent, be overruled?Decided 14-1175

2 cases
Equal population in voting districtsWesley W. Harris, et al., Appellants v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.1. Does the desire to gain advantage for one political party justify intentionally over-populating voting districts so that individual votes are devalued, thereby violating the one-person, one-vote principle? 2. Does the desire to obtain favorable preclearance review from the Justice Department permit the creation of voting districts that deviate from the one-person, one-vote principle in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder?Decided 14-232Who counts in districtsSue Evenwel v. Greg Abbott, Governor of TexasDoes the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that districting take into account the number of people eligible to vote, rather than the total population?Decided 14-940

1 case
Race in college admissionsAbigail Noel Fisher v. University of Texas at AustinDoes the University of Texas’ use of race as a consideration in the admissions process violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?Decided 14-981