Skip to main content
Supreme Court Case Tracker

Argument sitting

March 2021 oral arguments

9 cases across 9 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern

1 case
DecidedUnited States v. Arthrex, Inc.1. Whether, for purposes of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2, administrative patent judges of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are principal officers who must be appointed by the President with the Senate’s advice and consent, or “inferior Officers” whose appointment Congress has permissibly vested in a department head. 2. Whether, if administrative patent judges are principal officers, the court of appeals properly cured any Appointments Clause defect in the current statutory scheme prospectively by severing the application of 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) to those judges.Decided19-1434

1 case
DecidedBrnovich v. Democratic National Committee1. Does Arizona's out-of-precinct policy violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? 2. Does Arizona's ballot-collection law violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Fifteenth Amendment?Decided19-1257

1 case
DecidedCarr v. SaulWhether claimants seeking disability benefits under the Social Security Act must exhaust Appointments Clause challenges before the Administrative Law Judge as a prerequisite to obtaining judicial review.Decided19-1442

1 case
DecidedCedar Point Nursery v. HassidWhether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.Decided20-107

1 case
DecidedUnited States v. CooleyWhether the lower courts erred in suppressing evidence on the theory that a police officer of an Indian tribe lacked authority to temporarily detain and search respondent, a non-Indian, on a public right-of-way within a reservation based on a potential violation of state or federal law.Decided19-1414

1 case
DecidedCaniglia v. StromWhether the "community caretaking'' exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement extends to the home?Decided20-157

1 case
DecidedGoldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System1. Whether a defendant in a securities class action may rebut the presumption of classwide reliance recognized in Basic Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), by pointing to the generic nature of the alleged misstatements in showing that the statements had no impact on the price of the security, even though that evidence is also relevant to the substantive element of materiality. 2. Whether a defendant seeking to rebut the Basic presumption has only a burden of production or also the ultimate burden of persuasion.Decided20-222

1 case
DecidedTransUnion LLC v. RamirezWhether either Article III or Rule 23 permits a damages class action where the vast majority of the class suffered no actual injury, let alone an injury anything like what the class representative suffered.Decided20-297

1 case
DecidedNational Collegiate Athletic Assn. v. AlstonWhether the Ninth Circuit erroneously held, in conflict with decisions of other circuits and general antitrust principles, that the National Collegiate Athletic Association eligibility rules regarding compensation of student-athletes violate federal antitrust law.Decided20-512