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

Argument sitting

October 2023 oral arguments

9 cases across 7 argument daysArguments begin at 10 a.m. Eastern
Seven argument days, October 2 to October 31, 2023. Two of them have more than one case.

1 case
Pulsifer v. United StatesMust a defendant show he does not meet any of the criteria listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) to qualify for a sentence lower than the statutory minimum?Decided 22-340

1 case
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Assn. of America, Ltd.Does the funding scheme for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which receives funding directly from the Federal Reserve, violate the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution?Decided 22-448

1 case
Acheson Hotels, LLC v. LauferDoes an ADA “tester” have Article III standing to challenge a hotel’s failure to provide disability accessibility information on its website, even if she has no plans to visit the hotel?Decided 22-429

2 cases
Great Lakes Ins. SE v. Raiders Retreat Realty Co.Is a choice-of-law clause in a maritime contract unenforceable if enforcement would conflict with the “strong public policy” of the state whose law is displaced?Decided 22-500Murray v. UBS Securities, LLCUnder 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, must a whistleblower prove his employer acted with “retaliatory intent” as part of his case in chief?Decided 22-660

1 case
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACPDoes the South Carolina legislature’s redistricting map, which has the effect of moving tens of thousands of Black voters to a different district, constitute an impermissible racial gerrymander, even if the legislators’ purported intent was merely a political gerrymander?Decided 22-807

1 case
Culley v. MarshallWhat test must a district court apply when determining whether and when a post-deprivation hearing is required under the Due Process Clause?Decided 22-585

2 cases
O'Connor-Ratcliff v. GarnierDoes a public official engage in state action subject to the First Amendment by blocking an individual from the official’s personal social media account, which the official uses to communicate about job-related matters with the public?Decided 22-324Lindke v. FreedWhen does a public official’s social media activity constitute state action subject to the First Amendment?Decided 22-611