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

Argument sitting

November 2020 oral arguments

9 cases across 6 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Six argument days, November 2 to November 30, 2020. Three of them have more than one case.

2 cases
Court review of benefit denialsSalinas v. Railroad Retirement Bd.Whether, under section 5(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, 45 U.S.C. § 355(f), and section 8 of the Railroad Retirement Act, 45 U.S.C. § 231g, the Railroad Retirement Board's denial of a request to reopen a prior benefits determination is a "final decision" subject to judicial review.Decided 19-199Public access to agency draftsUnited States Fish and Wildlife Ser v. v. Sierra Club, Inc.Whether Exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5) (2012), by incorporating the deliberative process privilege, protects against compelled disclosure a federal agency's draft documents that were prepared as part of a formal interagency consultation process under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1536, and that concerned a proposed agency action that was later modified in the consultation process.Decided 19-547

2 cases
Life without parole for juvenilesJones v. MississippiWhether the Eighth Amendment requires the sentencing authority to make a finding that a juvenile is permanently incorrigible before imposing a sentence of life without parole.Decided 18-1259Reckless crimes and gun sentencesBorden v. United StatesDoes the "use of force" clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (the "ACCA"), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) encompass crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness?Decided 19-5410

1 case
Religious freedom in foster careFulton v. Philadelphia1. Whether free exercise plaintiffs can only succeed by proving a particular type of discrimination claim-namely that the government would allow the same conduct by someone who held different religious views-as two circuits have held, or whether courts must consider other evidence that a law is not neutral and generally applicable, as six circuits have held? 2. Whether Employment Division v. Smith should be revisited? 3. Whether a government violates the First Amendment by conditioning a religious agency's ability to participate in the foster care system on taking actions and making statements that directly contradict the agency's religious beliefs?Decided 19-123

2 cases
Suing officers after government lossBrownback v. KingThe question presented is whether a final judgment in favor of the United States in an action brought under Section 1346(b)(1), on the ground that a private person would not be liable to the claimant under state tort law for the injuries alleged, bars a claim under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), that is brought by the same claimant, based on the same injuries, and against the same governmental employees whose acts gave rise to the claimant's FTCA claim.Decided 19-546One immigration hearing noticeNiz-Chavez v. GarlandWhether, to serve notice in accordance with section 1229(a) and trigger the stop-time rule, the government must serve a specific document that includes all the information identified in section 1229(a), or whether the government can serve that information over the course of as many documents and as much time as it chooses.Decided 19-863

1 case
Health insurance mandateCalifornia v. Texas1. Whether the individual and state plaintiffs in this case have established Article III standing to challenge the minimum coverage provision in Section 5000A(a). 2. Whether reducing the amount specified in Section 5000A(c) to zero rendered the minimum coverage provision unconstitutional. 3. If so, whether the minimum coverage provision is severable from the rest of the ACA.Decided 19-840

1 case
Census counts for House seatsTrump v. New York1. Whether the relief entered satisfies the requirements of Article III of the Constitution. 2. Whether the Memorandum is a permissible exercise of the President’s discretion under the provisions of law governing congressional apportionment.Decided 20-366