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

Argument sitting

October 2017 oral arguments

12 cases across 7 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Seven argument days, October 2 to October 31, 2017. Five of them have more than one case.

2 cases
Vague deportation rulesSessions v. DimayaWhether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions governing an alien's removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague.Decided 15-1498Workers suing togetherEpic Systems Corp. v. LewisWhether an agreement that requires an employer and an employee to resolve?Decided 16-285

2 cases
Bond hearings for immigrantsJennings v. Rodriguez1. Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months. 2. Whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months. 3. Whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community; whether the length of the alien's detention must be weighed in favor of release; and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.Decided 15-1204Partisan gerrymanderingGill v. Whitford1. Did the district court violate Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis? 2. Did the district court violate Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles? 3. Did the district court violate Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986)? 4. Are Defendants entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed? 5. Are partisan-gerrymandering claims justiciable?Decided 16-1161

2 cases
Arrests for trespassingDistrict of Columbia v. Wesby1. Whether the officers had probable cause to arrest under the Fourth Amendment, and in particular whether, when the owner of a vacant home informs police that he has not authorized entry, an officer assessing probable cause to arrest those inside for trespassing may discredit the suspects' questionable claims of an innocent mental state. 2. Whether, even if there was no probable cause to arrest the apparent trespassers, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in this regard.Decided 15-1485Class v. United StatesWhether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant's right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction?Decided 16-424

1 case
Appeal deadline extensionsHamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of ChicagoWhether the 14-day limit on extensions of time to file a notice of appeal, set by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C), is jurisdictional?Decided 16-658

2 cases
EPA water rule reviewNational Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of DefenseDoes the Clean Water Act grant federal courts of appeals jurisdiction to review the Environmental Protection Agency’s rule that defines the scope of United States waters?Decided 16-299Company liability for abusesJesner v. Arab Bank, PLCWhether the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, categorically forecloses corporate liability?Decided 16-499

2 cases
Funding for death row appealsAyestas v. Davis1. Whether reasonable jurists could disagree that, by anticipatorily applying a procedural default not actually grounded in state law, a district court abused its discretion when it refused a routine stay and amendment necessary to exhaust claims associated with newly discovered evidence revealing overt discrimination in the prosecution's decision to seek the death penalty. 2. Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3599(f) withholds "reasonably necessary" resources to investigate and develop an IAC claim that state habeas counsel forfeited, where the claimant's existing evidence does not meet the ultimate burden of proof at the time the § 3599(f) motion is made.Decided 16-6795Federal review of state rulingsWilson v. SellersDid this Court's decision in Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), silently abrogate the presumption set forth in Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991)—that a federal court sitting in habeas proceedings should "look through" a summary state court ruling to review the last reasoned decision—as a slim majority of the en banc Eleventh Circuit held in this case, despite the agreement of both parties that the Ylst presumption should continue to apply?Decided 16-6855

1 case
Bankruptcy insider statusU. S. Bank N. A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLCWhether the appropriate standard of review for determining non-statutory insider status is the de novo standard of review applied by the Third, Seventh and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal, or the clearly erroneous standard of review adopted for the first time by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in this action?Decided 15-1509