Our Lady of Guadalupe v. Morrisey-Berru (consolidated with St. James School v. Biel)
No. 19-267 - Argued June 4, 2020Whether the First Amendment's religion clauses prevent civil courts from adjudicating employment-discrimination claims brought by an employee against her religious employer, when the employee carried out important religious functions.
Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP
No. 19-715 - Argued May 12, 2020Whether congressional subpoenas of the President’s personal financial records from a third-party custodian either violates Article II or exceeds the scope of Congress’s legislative authority under Article I of the Constitution?
Trump v. Vance
No. 19-635 - Argued May 12, 2020Whether a state grand-jury subpoena of the President’s personal financial records from a third-party custodian violates either Article II or the Supremacy Clause?
McGirt v. Oklahoma
No. 18-9526 - Argued May 11, 2020Can Oklahoma prosecute an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries?
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants Inc.
No. 19-631 - Argued May 6, 2020Whether a provision of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 exempting government debt collection calls from the ban on automated calls violates the First Amendment; and if so, whether that provision severable from the rest of the Act.
Torres v. Madrid
No. 19-292Whether physical force used to detain a suspect must be successful to constitute a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.
June Medical Services LLC v. Russo
No. 18-1323; 18-1460 - Argued March 4, 202018-1323: Whether the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, below, upholding Louisiana’s law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital, conflicts with the Court’s binding precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. 18-1460: Whether abortion providers have third-party standing to challenge Louisiana's statute.
United States v. Sineneng-Smith
No. 19-67 - Argued February 25, 2020Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing illegal immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain is facially unconstitutional.
Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
No. 18-1195 - Argued January 22, 2020Whether a state law that allows for funding for education generally while prohibiting funding for religious schools violates the Religion Clauses or the Equal Protection Clause of the federal Constitution.
Kelly v. United States
No. 18-1059 - Argued January 14, 2020Whether a public official “defrauds” the government of its property by advancing a “public policy reason” for an official decision that is not her subjective “real reason” for making the decision.