Editor's Note :

We expect the Court to issue one or more opinions in argued cases on both Tuesday, January 8, and Wednesday, January 9. We will be live blogging both days starting shortly before 10 a.m.

October Term 2012

View this list sorted by case name.

October Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
10.1.12
Tr.
 11-626 Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida Whether a floating structure that is indefinitely moored, receives power and other utilities from shore, and is not intended to be used in maritime transportation or commerce constitutes a “vessel” under 1 U.S.C. § 3, thus triggering federal maritime jurisdiction.
10.1.12
Tr.
Aud.		 10-1491 Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (1) Whether the issue of corporate civil tort liability under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, is a merits question or instead an issue of subject matter jurisdiction; (2) whether corporations are immune from tort liability for violations of the law of nations such as torture, extrajudicial executions or genocide may instead be sued in the same manner as any other private party defendant under the ATS for such egregious violations; and (3) whether and under what circumstances the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350, allows courts to recognize a cause of action for violations of the law of nations occurring within the territory of a sovereign other than the United States.
10.2.12
Tr.
Aud.		 11-184 Kloeckner v. Solis A federal employee who claims that an agency action appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board violates an antidiscrimination statute listed in 5 U.S.C. § 7702(a)(1) should seek judicial review in district court, not the Federal Circuit, regardless whether the Board decided her case on procedural grounds or on the merits. 12.10.2012
10.2.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-192 U.S. v. Bormes The Little Tucker Act does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity with respect to Fair Credit Reporting Act damages actions. 11.13.2012
10.3.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-465 Johnson v. Williams (1) Whether a habeas petitioner’s claim has been “adjudicated on the merits” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) where the state court denied relief in an explained decision but did not expressly acknowledge a federal-law basis for the claim.
10.3.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-597 Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. U.S. Recurrent flooding that is induced by the government and temporary in duration is not automatically exempt from liability under the Takings Clause. (Kagain, J., recused.) 12.4.2012
10.9.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 10-930 Ryan v. Gonzales Does 18 U.S.C. § 3599(a)(2), “which provides that an indigent capital state inmate pursuing federal habeas relief "shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys," entitle a death row inmate to stay the federal habeas proceedings he initiated if he is not competent to assist counsel?
10.9.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-218 Tibbals v. Carter 1) Whether capital prisoners possess a “right to competence” in federal habeas proceedings under Rees v. Peyton; and 2) whether a federal district court can order an indefinite stay of a federal habeas proceeding under Rees.
10.10.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-345 Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin Whether this Court’s decisions interpreting the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, including Grutter v. Bollinger, permit the University of Texas at Austin’s use of race in undergraduate admissions decisions. (Kagan, J., recused)
10.10.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-702 Moncrieffe v. Holder Whether a conviction under a provision of state law that encompasses but is not limited to the distribution of a small amount of marijuana without remuneration constitutes an aggravated felony, notwithstanding that the record of conviction does not establish that the alien was convicted of conduct that would constitute a federal felony.

November Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
10.29.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-1025 Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA Whether respondents lack Article III standing to seek prospective relief because they proffered no evidence that the United States would imminently acquire their international communications using 50 U.S.C. 1881a-authorized surveillance and did not show that an injunction prohibiting Section 1881a-authorized surveillance would likely redress their purported injuries.
10.29.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-697 Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons How do Section 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act, which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the copyright’s owner, and Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act, which allows the owner of a copy “lawfully made under this title” to sell or otherwise dispose of the copy without the copyright owner’s permission, apply to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States?
10.31.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-817 Florida v. Harris Whether an alert by a well-trained narcotics detection dog certified to detect illegal contraband is insufficient to establish probable cause for the search of a vehicle.
10.31.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-564 Florida v. Jardines Whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?
11.1.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-820 Chaidez v. U.S. Whether the Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation, applies to persons whose convictions became final before its announcement.
11.1.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-770 Bailey v. U.S. Whether, pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, police officers may detain an individual incident to the execution of a search warrant when the individual has left the immediate vicinity of the premises before the warrant is executed.
11.5.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-864 Comcast v. Behrend Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.
11.5.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-1085 Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds (1) Whether, in a misrepresentation case under Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, the district court must require proof of materiality before certifying a plaintiff class based on the fraud-on-the-market theory; and (2) whether, in such a case, the district court must allow the defendant to present evidence rebutting the applicability of the fraud-on-the-market theory before certifying a plaintiff class based on that theory.
11.6.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-1327 Evans v. Michigan Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial after the trial judge erroneously holds a particular fact to be an element of the offense and then grants a midtrial directed verdict of acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove that fact.
11.6.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-8976 Smith v. U.S. Whether withdrawing from a conspiracy prior to the statute of limitations period negates an element of a conspiracy charge such that, once a defendant meets his burden of production that he did so withdrawn, the burden of persuasion rests with the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a member of the conspiracy during the relevant period – a fundamental due process question that is the subject of a well-developed circuit split.
11.7.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-1175 Marx v. General Revenue Corp. Whether a prevailing defendant in a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case may be awarded costs for a lawsuit that was not “brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment,” when the FDCPA provides that “[o]n a finding by the court that an action under this section was brought in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment, the court may award to the defendant attorney’s fees reasonable in relation to the work expended and costs” and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) provides that “[u]nless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs -- other than attorney’s fees -- should be allowed to the prevailing party.”
11.7.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-982 Already, LLC v. Nike Whether a federal district court is divested of Article III jurisdiction over a party’s challenge to the validity of a federally registered trademark if the registrant promises not to assert its mark against the party’s then-existing commercial activities.

December Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
11.26.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-1160 FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System (1) Whether the Georgia legislature, by vesting a local government entity with general corporate powers to acquire and lease out hospitals and other property, has “clearly articulated and affirmatively expressed” a “state policy to displace competition” in the market for hospital services, thus rendering federal antitrust laws inapplicable under the “state action doctrine”; and (2) whether such a state policy, even if clearly articulated, would be sufficient to validate the anticompetitive conduct in this case, given that the local government entity -- which acquired the only competitor of a private actor at the private actor’s behest -- neither actively participated in negotiating the terms of the hospital sale nor has any practical means of overseeing the hospital’s operation.
11.26.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-556 Vance v. Ball State University Whether the “supervisor” liability rule established by Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim.
11.27.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-1285 U.S. Airways v. McCutchen Whether the Third Circuit correctly held -- in conflict with the Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits -- that Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) authorizes courts to use equitable principles to rewrite contractual language and refuse to order participants to reimburse their plan for benefits paid, even where the plan’s terms give it an absolute right to full reimbursement.
11.28.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-9307 Henderson v. U.S. Whether, when the governing law is unsettled at the time of trial but settled in the defendant’s favor by the time of appeal, an appellate court reviewing for “plain error” should apply Johnson v. United States’s time-of-appeal standard, as the First, Second, Sixth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits do, or should apply the Ninth Circuit’s time-of-trial standard, which the D.C. Circuit and the panel below have adopted.
12.3.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-338 Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (1) Whether a citizen may bypass judicial review of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting rule under 33 U.S.C. § 1369, and may instead challenge the validity of the rule in a citizen suit to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA); and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held that stormwater from logging roads is industrial stormwater under the rules of the CWA and the Environmental Protection Agency, even though EPA has determined that it is not industrial stormwater? (Breyer, J. recused)
12.3.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-1059 Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial power of Article III, when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff's claims.
12.3.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-347 Georgia-Pacific West v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center Whether the Ninth Circuit should have deferred to the Environmental Protection Agency’s longstanding position that channeled runoff from forest roads does not require a permit, and erred when it mandated that EPA regulate such runoff as industrial stormwater subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (Breyer, J., recused.)
12.4.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-1231 Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center Whether the 180-day statutory time limit for filing an appeal with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board from a final Medicare payment determination made by a fiscal intermediary, 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a)(3), is subject to equitable tolling.
12.4.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-460 LA County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense When water flows from one portion of a river that is navigable water of the United States, through a concrete channel or other engineered improvement in the river constructed for flood and stormwater control as part of a municipal separate storm sewer system, into a lower portion of the same river, whether there can be a “discharge” from an “outfall” under the Clean Water Act, notwithstanding this Court’s holding in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, that transfer of water within a single body of water cannot constitute a “discharge” for purposes of the Act. (limited to question 2)
12.5.2012
Tr.
Aud.		 11-1347 Chafin v. Chafin Whether an appeal of a district court's ruling on a Petition for Return of Children pursuant to the International Child Abduction Remedies Act and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction becomes moot after the child at issue returns to his or her country of habitual residence, as in the Eleventh Circuit's Bekier v. Bekier case, leaving the United States court system lacking any power or jurisdiction to affect any further issue in the matter, or should the United States courts retain power over their own appellate process, as in the Fourth Circuit's Fawcett v. McRoberts case, and maintain jurisdiction throughout the appellate process giving the concerned party an opportunity for proper redress.

January Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
1.7.2013
 11-1450 The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles Whether, after Smith v. Bayer, when a named plaintiff attempts to defeat a defendant’s right of removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 by filing with a class action complaint a “stipulation” that attempts to limit the damages he “seeks” for the absent putative class members to less than the $5 million threshold for federal jurisdiction, and the defendant establishes that the actual amount in controversy, absent the “stipulation,” exceeds $5 million, the “stipulation” is binding on absent class members so as to destroy federal jurisdiction.
1.7.2013
 11-9540 Descamps v. U.S. Whether, in a case under the Armed Career Criminal Act, when a state crime does not require an element of the federal crime of burglary, the federal court may find the existence of that element by examining the record of the state proceedings under the "modified categorical approach.”
1.8.2013
 11-1274 Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission Whether for purposes of applying the five-year limitations period under 28 U.S.C. § 2462 -- which provides that “except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress” any penalty action brought by the government must be “commenced within five years from the date when the claims first accrued” -- the government’s claim first accrues when the government can first bring an action for a penalty, where Congress has not enacted a separate controlling provision.
1.8.2013
 12-98 Delia v. E.M.A. Whether N.C. Gen. Stat. § 108A-57 is preempted by the Medicaid Act’s anti-lien provision, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(25), 1396k(a), as it was construed in Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. Ahlborn, an issue on which the North Carolina Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit are in conflict.
1.9.2013
 11-1425 Missouri v. McNeely Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.
1.9.2013
 12-25 Maracich v. Spears (1) Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that lawyers who obtain, disclose, or use personal information solely to find clients to represent in an incipient lawsuit – as opposed to evidence for use in existing or potential litigation – may seek solace under the litigation exception of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (DPPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2721-2725; and (2) whether the Fourth Circuit erred in reaching the conclusion that a lawyer who files an action that effectively amounts to a “place holder” lawsuit may thereafter use DPPA-protected personal information to solicit plaintiffs for that action through a direct mail advertising campaign on the grounds that such use is “inextricably intertwined” with “use in litigation.”
1.14.2013
 11-9335 Alleyne v. U.S. Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, holding that the Constitution does not require facts which increase a mandatory minimum sentence to be determined by a jury, should be overruled.
1.14.2013
 11-9953 Boyer v. Louisiana Whether a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years as a direct result of the prosecution’s choice to seek the death penalty should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes.
1.15.2013
 11-1351 Levin v. U.S. Whether suit may be brought against the United States for battery committed to a civilian by military medical personnel acting within the scope of employment.
1.15.2013
 11-1447 Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (1) Whether a land-use agency can be held liable for a taking when it refused to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did not accede to a permit condition that, if applied, would violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests set out in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) (2) whether the nexus and proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form of a government demand that a permit applicant dedicate money, services, labor, or any other type of personal property to a public use.
1.16.2013
 11-1118 Gunn v. Minton Whether federal courts have exclusive “arising under” jurisdiction when the sole substantive issue is the application of a patent law doctrine which is an essential element of Minton's legal malpractice claim.
1.16.2013
 11-1547 Cable, Telecom., and Tech. v. FCC Whether a court should apply Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., to review an agency’s determination of its own jurisdiction.
1.16.2013
 11-1545 City of Arlington v. FCC Whether a court should apply Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., to review an agency’s determination of its own jurisdiction.

February Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
2.19.2013
 11-796 Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Whether the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion – a doctrine which eliminates the right to control or prohibit the use of an invention after an authorized sale – in patented seeds that were sold for planting; and (2) creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.
2.19.2013
 11-10362 Millbrook v. U.S. Whether 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2680(h) waive the sovereign immunity of the United States for the intentional torts of prison guards when they are acting within the scope of their employment but are not exercising authority to "execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law."
2.20.2013
 12-43 PPL Corp. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Whether, in determining the creditability of a foreign tax, courts should employ a formalistic approach that looks solely at the form of the foreign tax statute and ignores how the tax actually operates, or should employ a substance-based approach that considers factors such as the practical operation and intended effect of the foreign tax.
2.20.2013
 12-17 McBurney v. Young Whether, under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV and the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, a state may preclude citizens of other states from enjoying the same right of access to public records that the state affords its own citizens.
2.25.2013
 12-126 McQuiggin v. Perkins Whether, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, there is an actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner show an extraordinary circumstance that “prevented timely filing” of a habeas petition, and if so, whether there is an additional actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner demonstrate that “he has been pursuing his rights diligently.”
2.25.2013
 11-10189 Trevino v. Thaler Whether the Court should vacate the Court of Appeals’ opinion and remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration of Mr. Trevino’s argument under Martinez v. Ryan?
2.26.2013
 12-62 Peugh v. U.S. Whether a sentencing court violates the Ex Post Facto Clause by using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing rather than the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, if the newer Guidelines create a significant risk that the defendant will receive a longer sentence.
2.26.2013
 12-207 Maryland v. King Whether the Fourth Amendment allows the states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes.
2.27.2013
 12-96 Shelby County v. Holder Whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.
2.27.2013
 12-133 American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant Whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits courts, invoking the “federal substantive law of arbitrability,” to invalidate arbitration agreements on the ground that they do not permit class arbitration of a federal-law claim. (Sotomayor, J., recused)

March Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion

April Sitting

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion

Decided without oral argument

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
11-1184 Tennant v. Jefferson County Commission In holding that West Virginia’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan violates the principle of “one person, one vote,” the district court misapplied the standard, set out in Karcher v. Daggett (1983), for evaluating challenges to redistricting plans and failed to afford appropriate deference to West Virginia’s reasonable exercise of its political judgment. Although West Virginia could have adopted a plan with lower variations in population among the districts, the state carried its burden to show that population deviations were necessary to achieve legitimate state objectives, such as avoiding contests between incumbents and not splitting political subdivisions. 9.25.2012
12-168 Lefemine v. Wideman In a lawsuit alleging that the conduct of government officials violates the Constitution, a plaintiff who obtains a permanent injunction but no money damages is a “prevailing party” because the injunction ordered the officials to change their behavior in a way that directly benefitted the plaintiff. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to receive his attorney’s fees unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust. 11.5.2012

Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument

Argument Docket Case Page Issue(s) or Holding Opinion
11-889 Tarrant Regional Water District v. Herrmann (1) Whether Congress’s approval of an interstate water compact that grants the contracting states “equal rights” to certain surface water and – using language present in almost all such compacts— provides that the compact shall not “be deemed . . . to interfere” with each state’s “appropriation, use, and control of water . . . not inconsistent with its obligations under this Compact,” manifests unmistakably clear congressional consent to state laws that expressly burden interstate commerce in water; and (2) whether a provision of a congressionally approved multi-state compact that is designed to ensure an equal share of water among the contracting states preempts protectionist state laws that obstruct other states from accessing the water to which they are entitled by the compact.
11-1518 Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A. What degree of misconduct by a trustee constitutes “defalcation” under § 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code that disqualifies the errant trustee’s resulting debt from a bankruptcy discharge, and whether it includes actions that result in no loss of trust property.
12-52 Dan’s City Used Cars v. Pelkey Whether state statutory, common law negligence, and consumer protection act enforcement actions against a tow-motor carrier based on state law regulating the sale and disposal of a towed vehicle are related to a transportation service provided by the carrier and are thus preempted by §49 U.S.C. 14501-c-1.
12-71 Arizona v. The Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in creating a new, heightened preemption test under Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution (“the Elections Clause”) that is contrary to the Supreme Court’s authority and conflicts with other circuit court decisions; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding that under that test the National Voter Registration Act preempts an Arizona law that requests persons who are registering to vote to show evidence that they are eligible to vote.
12-123 Horne v. Department of Agriculture (1) Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to the decisions of five other Circuit Courts of Appeals, that a party may not raise the Takings Clause as a defense to a “direct transfer of funds mandated by the Government,” Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel, but instead must pay the money and then bring a separate, later claim requesting reimbursement of the money under the Tucker Act in the Court of Federal Claims; and (2) whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, contrary to a decision of the Federal Circuit, that it lacked jurisdiction over petitioners’ takings defense, even though petitioners, as “handlers” of raisins under the Raisin Marketing Order, are statutorily required under 7 U.S.C. § 608c(15) to exhaust all claims and defenses in administrative proceedings before the United States Department of Agriculture, with exclusive jurisdiction for review in federal district court.
12-135 Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter Whether an arbitrator acts within his powers under the Federal Arbitration Act (as the Second and Third Circuits have held) or exceeds those powers (as the Fifth Circuit has held) by determining that parties affirmatively “agreed to authorize class arbitration,” Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animalfeeds Int'l Corp., based solely on their use of broad contractual language precluding litigation and requiring arbitration of any dispute arising under their contract.
12-142 Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett Whether the First Circuit Court of Appeals erred when it created a circuit split and held – in clear conflict with this Court’s decisions in PLIVA v. Mensing, Riegel v. Medtronic, and Cipollone v. Liggett Group – that federal law does not preempt state law design-defect claims targeting generic pharmaceutical products because the conceded conflict between such claims and the federal laws governing generic pharmaceutical design allegedly can be avoided if the makers of generic pharmaceuticals simply stop making their products.
12-144 Hollingsworth v. Perry (1) Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the State of California from defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman; and (2) whether petitioners have standing under Article III, § 2 of the Constitution in this case.
12-167 U.S. v. Davila Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that any degree of judicial participation in plea negotiations, in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1), automatically requires vacatur of a defendant’s guilty plea, irrespective of whether the error prejudiced the defendant.
12-236 Sebelius v. Cloer Whether a person whose petition under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is dismissed as untimely may recover from the United States an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.
12-307 U.S. v. Windsor (1) Whether Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws as applied to persons of the same sex who are legally married under the laws of their State; (2) whether the Executive Branch’s agreement with the court below that DOMA is unconstitutional deprives this Court of jurisdiction to decide this case; and (3) whether the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the United States House of Representatives has Article III standing in this case.
12-398 Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Whether human genes are patentable.
12-399 Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl (1) Whether a non-custodial parent can invoke the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, to block an adoption voluntarily and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent under state law; and (2) whether ICWA defines “parent” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(9) to include an unwed biological father who has not complied with state law rules to attain legal status as a parent.
12-416 Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals Whether reverse-payment agreements are per se lawful unless the underlying patent litigation was a sham or the patent was obtained by fraud (as the court below held), or instead are presumptively anticompetitive and unlawful (as the Third Circuit has held). (Alito, J., recused)