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

Argument sitting

January 2019 oral arguments

11 cases across 6 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Six argument days, January 7 to January 16, 2019. Five of them have more than one case.

2 cases
Foreclosure debt collectionObduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLPWhether the FDCPA applies to non-judicial foreclosure proceedings.Decided 17-1307Drug warnings and lawsuitsMerck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. AlbrechtWhether the FDA’s rejection of a proposed warning constitutes clear evidence that it would not have approved a change to the drug’s label, preempting state-law failure-to-warn claims?Decided 17-290

2 cases
Tribal treaty hunting rightsHerrera v. WyomingWhether Wyoming's admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians' 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the "unoccupied lands of the United States," thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.Decided 17-532When copyright lawsuits can startFourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.comIs “registration of [a] copyright claim” complete under 17 U.S.C. § 411(a) when the copyright holder delivers the required application, fees, and materials to the copyright office, or only once the copyright office has acted on that application?Decided 17-571

1 case
States sued in other statesFranchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. HyattWhether Nevada v. Hall , 440 U.S. 410 (1979), which permits a sovereign State to be haled into another State's courts without its consent, should be overruled.Decided 17-1299

2 cases
TVA immunity from lawsuitsGary Thacker, et ux., Petitioners v. Tennessee Valley Authority1. This Court tests the immunity of governmental "sue and be sued" entities (like the Tennessee Valley Authority) under Fed. Housing Amin. v. Burr , 309 U.S. 242 (1940). The Court has declined to borrow rules from the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) to narrow that immunity. FDIC v. Meyer , 510 U.S. 471 (1994). Did the Eleventh Circuit err by using an FTCA-derived "discretionary-function exception," rather than Burr , to immunize the TVA from the plaintiffs' claims? 2. Did the Eleventh Circuit, in any case, correctly apply the discretionary-function test? Did that court correctly hold that safely raising a downed power line from the Tennessee River constitutes the sort of "policy"-laden discretionary work that this exception was designed to immunize from suit?Decided 17-1201Copyright lawsuit costsRimini Street, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Oracle USA, Inc., et al.Whether the Copyright Act's allowance of "full costs" (17 U.S.C. § 505) to a prevailing party is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits have held, or also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the Ninth Circuit holds.Decided 17-1625

2 cases
Class actions in federal courtHome Depot U.S.A., Inc., Petitioner v. George W. Jackson1. SHOULD THIS COURT’S HOLDING IN SHAMROCK OIL & GAS CORP. V. SHEETS, 313 U. S. 100 (1941) – THAT AN ORIGINAL PLAINTIFF MAY NOT REMOVE A COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST IT- EXTEND TO THIRD-PARTY COUNTERCLAIM DEFENDANTS? 2. Whether an original defendant to a class-action claim can remove the class action if it otherwise satisfies the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act when the class action was originally asserted as a counterclaim against a co-defendant.Decided 17-1471Public comment on Medicare rulesAlex M. Azar, II, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Petitioner v. Allina Health Services, et al.1. WHETHER 42 U.S.C. §1395hh(a)(2) or §1395hh(a)(4) REQUIRED THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES TO CONDUCT NOTICE-AND-COMMENT RULEMAKING BEFORE PROVIDING THE CHALLENGED INSTRUCTIONS TO A MEDICARE ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACTOR MAKING INITIAL DETERMINATIONS OF PAYMENTS DUE UNDER MEDICARE. 2. Whether Section 1395hh(a)(2) requires HHS to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking before providing instructions to a Medicare Administrative Contractor that makes initial determinations of payments due under Medicare, when those instructions rest on a non--legally-binding administrative interpretation of a relevant statutory provision.Decided 17-1484

2 cases
Property claims in federal courtKnick v. Township of Scott1. Whether the Court should reconsider the portion of Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 194-96 (1985), requiring property owners to exhaust state court remedies to ripen federal takings claims, as suggested by Justices of this Court? See Arrigoni Enterprises, LLC V. Town of Durham, 136 S. Ct. 1409 (2016) (Thomas, J., joined by Kennedy, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 348 (2005) (Rehnquist, C.J., joined by O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., concurring in judgment). 2. Alternately, whether Williamson County's ripeness doctrine bars review of takings claims asserting that a law causes an unconstitutional taking on its face as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth and now Third Circuits hold, or whether facial claims are exempt from Williamson County, as the First, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits hold?Decided 17-647Residency rules for liquor licensesTennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. ThomasWhether the Twenty-first Amendment empowers States, consistent with the dormant Commerce Clause, to regulate liquor sales by granting retail or wholesale licenses only to individuals or entities that have resided in-state for a specified time.Decided 18-96