The U.S. Supreme Court has released its December argument calendar for the 2019-2020 term. The court will hear 12 hours of oral argument in 15 cases between December 2 and December 11.
As of September 16, 2019, the court had agreed to hear 44 cases in the upcoming term.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York asks whether New York City’s ban on transporting a handgun outside of city limits violates the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the constitutional right to travel.
- Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. asks whether works that lack the force of law, like the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, are subject to copyright law.
- Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation asks the Court to resolve a U.S. Court of Appeals split on how courts should decide tax refund ownership.
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian asks whether federal law preempts clean-up costs at superfund sites beyond the clean-up ordered by the EPA.
- Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee v. Sulyma asks about the statute of limitations for filing claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
- Banister v. Davis asks whether a motion to review an earlier judgment should be recharacterized as a second or successive habeas corpus petition.
- Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr asks whether courts can review a request for equitable tolling of statutory motions to reopen as a matter of law. It was consolidated with Ovalles v. Barr.
- Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP asks whether federal law permits an appeal of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision to allow a procedure to challenge a patent claim if the one-year time limitation does not apply.
- Maine Community Health Options v. United States asks whether Congress can prohibit a federal agency from paying a statutory obligation through appropriations provisions that restrict the use of funds for the payment. It was consolidated with both Moda Health Plan Inc. v. United States and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Co. v. United States.
- Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S. asks whether a criminal defendant must formally challenge a sentence’s length when it is announced for an appellate court to review the sentence.
- Monasky v. Taglieri asks how to interpret the standard of review for habitual residence and how to establish habitual residence for purposes of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
- McKinney v. Arizona asks whether a court must apply current law when reviewing mitigating and aggravating evidence to determine whether a death sentence is warranted.