Chiles v. Salazar

A case in which the Court will decide whether federal candidates have Article III standing to challenge state election laws that extend the deadline for receiving and counting mail-in ballots beyond Election Day when they allege vote dilution and increased campaign costs from monitoring extended ballot counting.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a claim that Postal Service employees intentionally refused to deliver mail to a designated address arises out of “the loss” or “miscarriage” of postal matter under the Federal Tort Claims Act’s postal-matter exception.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a Colorado law banning “conversion therapy”—i.e., attempts to “convert” someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity—violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment permits two sentences for an act that violates 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) and (j).

A case in which the Court will decide whether a trial court violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by banning discussion of the defendant’s ongoing testimony with counsel during an overnight recess.

A case in which the Court held that federal district courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether a privately owned and operated school’s educational decisions are considered state action simply because the school has a contract with the state to provide free education to students, and (2) whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits, or the Establishment Clause requires, a state to exclude religious schools from its charter-school program.

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.

A case in which the Court will decide (1) whether the Supremacy Clause prevents individuals from suing the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act when federal employees’ actions, even if negligent or wrongful, are related to carrying out federal policy and can be interpreted as following federal laws; and (2) whether the discretionary-function exception, which usually protects the government from being sued for certain decisions made by its employees, is always inapplicable when dealing with claims related to law enforcement officers’ actions that fall under the intentional torts category?

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Combat-Related Special Compensation statute contains its own procedure for calculating retroactive payments that displaces the six-year limitations period in the Barring Act.