U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

A case in which the Court will clarify the methodology for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, includes acts unrelated to investigations and evidence.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Fourth Amendment malicious-prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge so long as other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause.

A case in which the Court will decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions a state or local official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder in order to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder’s stock should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder’s shares for purposes of the federal estate tax.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

A case in which the Court will resolve a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2016 and 2021 approval of the abortion drug mifepristone.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the 60-day filing deadline in 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(1)(A) is jurisdictional.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Indian Health Service must pay “contract support costs” not only to support IHS-funded activities, but also to support the tribe’s expenditure of income collected from third parties.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the probable-cause exception in Nieves v. Barlett can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened; and whether Nieves is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests.