Americans For Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, Att'y Gen. of CA
Whether the exacting scrutiny this Court has long required of laws that abridge the freedoms of speech and association outside the election context—as called for by NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny—can be satisfied absent any showing that a blanket governmental demand for the individual identities and addresses of major donors to private nonprofit organizations is narrowly tailored to an asserted law-enforcement interest.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com, L.P.
Whether, as the Fifth Circuit alone has held, district courts “lack[] discretion to deny or reduce” appellate costs deemed “taxable” in district court under Fed. R. App. P. 39(e).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Gov't of Guam v. United States
1. Whether a non-CERCLA settlement can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B). 2. Whether a settlement that expressly disclaims any liability determination and leaves the settling party exposed to future liability can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).
Area(s) of Law:- Environmental Law
Greer v. United States
Whether when applying plain-error review based upon an intervening United States Supreme Court decision, a circuit court of appeals may review matters outside the trial record to determine whether the error affected a defendant’s substantial rights or impacted the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the trial?
Area(s) of Law:- Appellate Procedure
HollyFrontier Cheyenne Ref. v. Renewable Fuels Ass'n
In order to qualify for a hardship exemption under § 7545(o)(9)(B)(i) of the Renewable Fuel Standards, does a small refinery need to receive uninterrupted, continuous hardship exemptions for every year since 2011.
Area(s) of Law:- Administrative Law
Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L.
Whether Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969), which holds that public school officials may regulate speech that would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school, applies to student speech that occurs off-campus.
Area(s) of Law:- First Amendment
Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.
Whether a defendant in a patent infringement action who assigned the patent, or is in privity with an assignor of the patent, may have a defense of invalidity heard on the merits.
Area(s) of Law:- Patents
Mnuchin, Sec'y of Treasury v. Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation
Whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations (ANCs) established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act are “Indian Tribe[s]” for purposes of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), 42 U.S.C. 801(g)(1).
Area(s) of Law:- Indian Law
Sanchez, Jose S. v. Wolf, Sec. of Homeland
Whether, under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(f)(4), a grant of Temporary Protected Status authorizes eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful-permanent-resident status under 8 U.S.C. § 1255.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration
Terry, Tarahrick v. United States
Whether pre-August 3, 2010, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
United States v. Gary, Michael A.
Whether a defendant who pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm as a felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a), is automatically entitled to plain-error relief if the district court did not advise him that one element of that offense is knowledge of his status as a felon, regardless of whether he can show that the district court’s error affected the outcome of the proceedings.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
United States v. Palomar-Santiago, Refugio
Whether a defendant automatically satisfies all three of the prerequisites under 8 U.S.C. 1326(d) solely by showing that he was removed for a crime that would not be considered a removable offense under current circuit law, even if he cannot independently demonstrate administrative exhaustion or deprivation of the opportunity for judicial review.
Area(s) of Law:- Immigration