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

Argument sitting

March 2022 oral arguments

8 cases across 7 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Seven argument days, March 1 to March 29, 2022. One of them has more than one case.

2 cases
Intent in prescription drug crimesXiulu Ruan v. United StatesWhether a physician alleged to have prescribed controlled substances outside the usual course of professional practice may be convicted under Section 841(a)(1) without regard to whether, in good faith, he "reasonably believed" or "subjectively intended" that his prescriptions fall within that course of professional practice.Decided 20-1410Medicare rules for dialysis paymentsMarietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc.1. Congress enacted the Medicare Secondary Payer Act as a means to conserve Medicare resources. Among other things, the Act provides that group health plans may not "take into account" the fact that a plan participant with end stage renal disease is eligible for Medicare benefits. Does a group health plan that provides uniform reimbursement of all dialysis treatments observe that prohibition? 2. Under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, a group health plan also may not "differentiate" between individuals with end stage renal disease and others "in the benefits it provides." Does a plan that provides the same dialysis benefits to all plan participants, and reimburses dialysis providers uniformly regardless of whether the patient has end stage renal disease, observe that prohibition? 3. Is the Medicare Secondary Payer Act a coordination-of-benefits measure designed to protect Medicare, not an antidiscrimination law designed to protect certain providers from alleged disparate impact of uniform treatment?Decided 20-1641

1 case
Suing federal officersEgbert v. Boule1. Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for First Amendment retaliation claims. 2. Whether a cause of action exists under Bivens for claims against federal officers engaged in immigration-related functions for allegedly violating a plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights.Decided 21-147

1 case
Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP1. Whether a state agent authorized by state law to defend the State's interest in litigation must overcome a presumption of adequate representation to intervene as of right in a case in which a state official is a defendant. 2. Whether a district court's determination of adequate representation in ruling on a motion to intervene as of right is reviewed de novo or for abuse of discretion. 3. Whether Petitioners are entitled to intervene as of right in this litigation.Decided 21-248

1 case
Safety measures for child returnsGolan v. SaadaWhether, upon finding that return to the country of habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding the grave risk finding.Decided 20-1034

1 case
Evidence for private arbitrationZF Automotive U. S., Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which permits litigants to invoke the authority of United States courts to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in "a foreign or international tribunal," encompasses private commercial arbitral tribunals, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Sixth Circuits have held, or excludes such tribunals, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits have held.Decided 21-401

1 case
Railroad yard safetyLeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.1. Whether a locomotive is in use on a railroad's line and subject to the LIA and its safety regulations when its train makes a temporary stop in a railyard as part of its unitary journey in interstate commerce, or whether such use does not resume until the locomotive has left the yard as part of a fully assembled train, as held by the Seventh Circuit below, contrary to the decisions of this Court and other circuits. 2. Whether the FELA allows a jury determination on the issue of foreseeability of harm from oil on a locomotive passageway when the railroad failed to conduct federally mandated daily safety inspections intended to discover and cure such hazards in the days before the injury incident, contrary to the longstanding decisions of this Court.Decided 20-807

1 case
War powers and state lawsuitsTorres v. Texas Department of Public SafetyWhether Congress has the power to authorize suits against nonconsenting states pursuant to its War Powers?Decided 20-603