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

Argument sitting

March 2018 oral arguments

8 cases across 6 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Six argument days, March 19 to March 28, 2018. Two of them have more than one case.

1 case
Life insurance after divorceSveen v. MelinWhether the retroactive application of a Minnesota law that automatically revokes an ex-spouse's status as a life insurance beneficiary violates the Constitution's Contracts Clause.Decided 16-1432

1 case
Speech rules for pregnancy centersNational Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra1. WHETHER THE DISCLOSURES REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA REPRODUCTIVE FACT ACT VIOLATE THE PROTECTIONS SET FORTH IN THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, APPLICABLE TO THE STATES THROUGH THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 2. Whether the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits California from compelling licensed pro-life centers to post information on how to obtain a state-funded abortion and from compelling unlicensed pro-life centers to disseminate a disclaimer to clients on site and in any print and digital advertising.Decided 16-1140

1 case
Tribal immunity in property disputesUpper Skagit Tribe v. LundgrenDoes a court's exercise of in rem jurisdiction overcome the jurisdictional bar of tribal sovereign immunity when the tribe has not waived immunity and Congress has not unequivocally abrogated it?Decided 17-387

2 cases
Shackling before trialUnited States v. Sanchez-GomezWhether the court of appeals erred in asserting authority to review respondents' interlocutory challenge to pretrial physical restraints and in ruling on that challenge notwithstanding its recognition that respondents' individual claims were moot?Decided 17-312Class action filing deadlinesChina Agritech, Inc. v. ReshWhether the American Pipe rule tolls statutes of limitations to permit a previously absent class member to bring a subsequent class action outside the applicable limitations period.Decided 17-432

2 cases
Sentence reductions after plea dealsHughes v. United States1. Whether this Court's decision in Marks means that the concurring opinion in a 4-1-4 decision represents the holding of the Court where neither the plurality's reasoning nor the concurrence's reasoning is a logical subset of the other. 2. Whether, under Marks, the lower courts are bound by the four-Justice plurality opinion in Freeman, or, instead, by Justice Sotomayor's separate concurring opinion with which all eight other Justices disagreed. 3. Whether, as the four-Justice plurality in Freeman concluded, a defendant who enters into a Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is generally eligible for a sentence reduction if there is a later, retroactive amendment to the relevant Sentencing Guidelines range.Decided 17-155Drug sentence reductionsKoons v. United States1. Whether the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in holding, contrary to the opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, that defendants whose initial advisory guideline sentencing range was below a statutory mandatory minimum and who were subsequently sentenced below that minimum after the district court granted a government motion for reduction in sentence for substantial assistance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), are not eligible for further reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and retroactive sentencing guideline Amendment 782, which lowered the base offense levels assigned to most drug quantities? 2. Whether Freeman v. United States , 564 U.S. 522 (2011) (plurality opinion) supports the holding that there is a substantive limitation on the term "based on" in 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) that prohibits defendants whose initial advisory guideline range was below a statutory mandatory minimum, and who were subsequently sentenced below that minimum after the district court granted a government motion for reduction in sentence for substantial assistance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), from being eligible for further reduction in sentence due to retroactive sentencing guideline Amendment 782?Decided 17-5716

1 case
Political retaliation in redistrictingBesinek v. Lamone1. Did the majority err in holding that, to establish an actual, concrete injury in a First Amendment retaliation challenge to a partisan gerrymander, a plaintiff must prove that the gerrymander has dictated and will continue to dictate the outcome of every election held in the district under the gerrymandered map? 2. Did the majority err in holding that the Mt. Healthy burden-shifting framework is inapplicable to First Amendment retaliation challenges to partisan gerrymanders? 3. Regardless of the applicable legal standards, did the majority err in holding that the present record does not permit a finding that the 2011 gerrymander was a but-for cause of the Democratic victories in the district in 2012, 2014, or 2016?Decided 17-333