U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Hawaii law that makes it a crime for a licensed concealed carry permit holder to bring a handgun onto private property open to the public—such as a store or restaurant—unless the property owner gives "express authorization" violates the Second Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the New Jersey Transit Corporation is an arm of the State of New Jersey for interstate sovereign immunity purposes.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a State from categorically requiring sports participants to compete based on their biological sex, rather than gender identity.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause allow a state to designate school sports teams for girls and boys based on students’ biological sex as determined at birth.

A case in which the Court will decide whether an oil company that produced crude oil during World War II to fulfill federal contracts for refining that oil into fuel can have its case heard in federal court, even though the specific contracts did not explicitly direct how the oil should be produced.

In this discussion, lead petitioner counsel Mr. Overing presents arguments on how multiple IQ scores should be evaluated in Atkins claims. Respondent counsel Mr. Graver defends Alabama's law, emphasizing state discretion in defining intellectual disability, while Mr. Waxman advocates for a holistic analysis of evidence beyond just IQ scores. The interplay of IQ results and adaptive functioning evidence takes center stage, as the justices probe the implications of federal standards versus state-defined criteria for the Eighth Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act (ICA), 15 U.S.C. § 80a-46 (b), creates an implied private right of action.

A case in which the Court will decide whether limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications.”

A case in which the Court will decide whether the statutory removal protections for members of the Federal Trade Commission violate the separation of powers and, if so, whether Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), should be overruled.

A case in which the Court will decide whether its decision in Heck v. Humphrey bars claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking only prospective relief when the plaintiff has previously been punished under the challenged law, and whether such a bar applies even when the plaintiff never had access to federal habeas review.