Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case Tracker

Argument sitting

December 2019 oral arguments

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

2 cases
DecidedGeorgia v. Public Resource.Org, Inc.Whether the annotations in the Official Code of Georgia Annotated are eligible for copyright protection.Decided18-1150DecidedNew York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. City of New YorkWhether the City's ban on transporting a licensed, locked, and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.Decided18-280

2 cases
DecidedAtlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian1. Whether a common-law claim for restoration seeking cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies is a "challenge" to EPA's cleanup jurisdictionally barred by § 113 of CERCLA. 2. Whether a landowner at a Superfund site is a "potentially responsible party" that must seek EPA's approval under CERCLA § 122(e)(6) before engaging in remedial action, even if EPA has never ordered the landowner to pay for a cleanup. 3. Whether CERCLA preempts state common-law claims for restoration that seek cleanup remedies that conflict with EPA-ordered remedies.Decided17-1498DecidedRodriguez v. FDICWhether courts should determine ownership of a tax refund paid to an affiliated group based on the federal common law "Bob Richards rule," as three Circuits hold, or based on the law of the relevant State, as four Circuits hold.Decided18-1269

2 cases
DecidedIntel Corp. Investment Policy Comm. v. SulymaWhether the three-year limitations period in Section 413(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. 1113(2), which runs from "the earliest date on which the plaintiff had actual knowledge of the breach or violation," bars suit where all of the relevant information was disclosed to the plaintiff by the defendants more than three years before the plaintiff filed the complaint, but the plaintiff chose not to read or could not recall having read the information.Decided18-1116DecidedBanister v. Davis1. WHETHER AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES A TIMELY RULE 59 (e) MOTION SHOULD BE RECHARACTERIZED AS A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE HABEAS PETITION UNDER GONZALEZ v. CROSBY, 545 U.S. 524 (2005)? 2. In Gonzalez V. Crosby this Court held that a Rule 60(b) motion that either adds new habeas claim or attacks the court's previous resolution of the habeas claims, should be treated as a successive habeas petition under AEDPA's §2244. Does Gonzalez extend to post-judgment motions filed under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure? 3. If so, should a timely filed Rule 59(e) motion toll the the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(iv)? 4. Whether a pro se petitioner must be warned and given an opportunity to withdraw a post-judgment motion which has been recharacterized as a successive habeas petition if that recharacterization will effect his ability to file a timely notice of appeal?Decided18-6943

1 case
DecidedThryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP1. Whether 35 U.8.C. § 314(d) permits appeal of the PTAB's decision to institute an inter partes review upon finding that§ 315(b)'s time bar did not apply. 2. Whether 35 U.8.C. § 315(b) bars institution of an inter partes review when the previously served patent infringement complaint, filed more than one year before the IPR petition, had been dismissed without prejudice.Decided18-916

2 cases
DecidedMaine Community Health Options v. United States1. Given the "cardinal rule" disfavoring implied repeals-which applies with "especial force" to appropriations acts and requires that repeal not be found unless the later enactment is "irreconcilable" with the former-can an appropriations rider whose text bars the agency's use of certain funds to pay a statutory obligation, but does not repeal or amend the statutory obligation, and is thus not inconsistent with it, nonetheless be held to impliedly repeal the obligation by elevating the perceived "intent" of the rider (drawn from unilluminating legislative history) above its text, and the text of the underlying statute? 2. Where the federal government has an unambiguous statutory payment obligation, under a program involving reciprocal commitments by the government and a private company participating in the program, does the presumption against retroactivity apply to the interpretation of an appropriations rider that is claimed to have impliedly repealed the government's obligation?Decided18-1023DecidedHolguin-Hernandez v. United StatesWhether a formal objection after pronouncement of sentence is necessary to invoke appellate reasonableness review of the length of a defendant's sentence.Decided18-7739

2 cases
DecidedMcKinney v. Arizona1. Whether the Arizona Supreme Court was required to apply current law when weighing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted? 2. Whether the correction of error under Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982), requires resentencing?Decided18-1109DecidedMonasky v. Taglieri1. Whether a district court’s determination of habitual residence under the Hague Convention should be reviewed de novo, as the Third and Seventh Circuits have held, or under a deferential standard of review, as the Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have held. 2. Whether an infant can have a “habitual residence” in a country without an actual agreement between the parents to settle there.Decided18-935