Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a cases about (1) self-incrimination in a capital punishment trial and (2) the statue of limitations for child custody petitions under the Hague Convention:

(1)  White v. Woodall [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-794]

• Does a trial court’s rejection of a non-testifying defendant’s request for a no-adverse-influence instruction during the sentencing phase of a capital punishment trial violate that defendant’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination when the defendant has pled guilty to all of the alleged crimes and aggravating circumstances?

(2) Lozano v. Alvarez  [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-820]

• Can a district court considering a petition under the Hague Convention for the return of an abducted child to the child’s home country toll the running of the one-year filing deadline when the abducting parent has concealed the whereabouts of the child from the other parent?

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a cases about (1) EPA rulemaking and (2) the Child Status Protection Act :

(1)  EPA v. EME Homer City Generation [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1182]

• Did the EPA permissibly interpret the phrase “contribute significantly” when it balanced achievable emission reduction levels against the cost of achieving such emission reductions?
• Can states wait for the EPA to adopt a rule quantifying each state’s “good neighbor” obligations before they adopt a state implementation plan prohibiting emissions that “contribute significantly” to other states’ pollution problems?

(2)  Mayorkas v. Cuellar de Osoria [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-930]

• Does the Child Status Protection Act grant relief to an alien who qualifies as a child derivative beneficiary at the time a visa petition is initially filed, but who reaches age 21 (“ages out”) when the visa becomes available to the principal beneficiary?

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about (1) airline immunity under the Transportation Safety Act when an employee files a false report; and  (2) if a court’s decision is “final” when contractual attorney fees remain unresolved:

(1)  Air Wisconsin Airlines v. Hoeper  [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-315]

• Can a court deny an airline immunity under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act for a report made by its employees to the Transportation Security Administration about another employee, without first determining that the airline’s disclosure was materially false?

(2)   Ray Haluch Gravel Co. v. Central Pension Fund  [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-992]

• Can a district court’s decision that does not resolve a request for contractual attorney’s fees be a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291?

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case about the rights of citizens of public roads cutting through military installations:

(1)  US v. Apel  [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1038]

• Can 18 U.S.C. § 1382, which prohibits a person from reentering a military installation after a commanding officer has ordered him not to reenter, be enforced on a portion of a military installation that is subject to a public roadway easement?

The other case scheduled for today, Township of Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Garden Citizens in Action, Inc., settled.  You can nevertheless read our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-1507, and some thoughts on the settlement here. 

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about (1) preemption of state law tort claims under the Airline Deregulation Act and (2) standing to bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act:

(1)  Northwest, Inc. v. Ginsberg  [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-462]

• Does the Airline Deregulation Act preempt a state claim for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing concerning a frequent flyer program?

(2)   Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-873]

• What is the appropriate framework to determine standing in a false advertising action under the Lanham Act?

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about (1) the role of federal courts in private arbitrations and (2) the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act:

(1)   BG Group, PLC v. Republic of Argentina  [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-138]

• Does an arbitrator or a court decide whether a precondition to arbitration has been satisfied?

• To what extent can federal courts review such decisions?

(2)   Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-515]

• Can a federal court exercise jurisdiction over a state suit alleging violations of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act where the gaming activity is not located on Indian lands?

• Does tribal sovereign immunity bar a state from suing a tribe in federal court for violations of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act?

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about (1) warrantless searches of shared dwellings and (2) the Labor-Management Relations Act:

(1)   Fernandez v. California [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-7822]

• Can police obtain consent from a cotenant to search a dwelling after another cotenant who objected to the search is lawfully removed?

(2)   Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-99]

• Does an agreement stipulating that an employer will remain neutral and give access to employee information in exchange for a union’s support of an employer-friendly ballot initiative, constitute a “thing of value” in violation § 302 of the Labor-Management Relations Act; or, must a thing of value be monetary for purposes of § 302?

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about (1) the knowledge required to convict a defendant of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm; (2) criminal liability and causation for drug-related deaths; and (3) retaliation against private contractors working for publicly held companies under Sarbanes-Oxley:

(1)   Rosemond v. US  [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-895]

• In order to convict a defendant of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime, does the government need to prove that the defendant intentionally facilitated or encouraged the use of the firearm, or merely that the defendant knew that the principal used a firearm during the crime?

(2)   Burrage v. US [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-7515]

• Can a defendant who sells drugs to someone who dies of an overdose be held criminally liable for that person’s death if the drug contributed to the victim’s death but was not the sole cause?

(3)   Lawson v. FMR, LLC  [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-3]

• Does the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, which forbids publicly traded companies, mutual funds, and contractors or subcontractors of such companies from discriminating or retaliating against an employee because of certain protected conduct, protect an employee of a privately-held contractor or subcontractor of a public company?

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about (1) the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and (2) when actions brought by a state fall under the Class Actions Fairness Act:

(1)   Town of Greece v. Galloway [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-696]

• Does a town violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by starting its board meetings with prayer?

(2)  Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp. [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1036]

• When is a state’s parens patriae action a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act, and therefore removable to federal court?

Today, the Supreme Court hears arguments about (1)   (2) the intersection of Congress’ treaty power and federal criminal law; and (3) federal questions in state administrative procedures:

(1)  Medtronic, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1128]

• Does the burden of proving patent infringement in a declaratory judgment action fall upon the licensee or licensor?

(2)  Bond v. United States [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-158]

• Do the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses, read in connection with the treaty power, allow a statute that was enacted by Congress to enforce a treaty to serve as a valid basis for prosecuting a criminal defendant in Federal District Court?

(3)  Sprint Communications Co. v. Jacobs [see our preview at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-815]

• Should federal courts abstain from remedial actions—state administrative proceedings initiated by a private party—involving a federal question?