The Court issued additional orders from the January 8 Conference on Monday. On Tuesday the Court released its opinions in Hurst v. Florida and Bruce v. Samuels. The Court also heard oral arguments on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. The calendar for the January sitting is available here. On Friday the Justices granted eight new cases from their January 15 Conference.

• Zubik v. Burwell
  Does the availability of a regulatory method for nonprofit religious employers to comply with the HHS contraceptive mandate eliminate the substantial burden on religious exercise in violation of RFRA that the Court recognized in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.?
• Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole
  Whether, when applying the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Fifth Circuit erred in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State’s interest in promoting health - or any other valid interest.
• Evenwel v. Abbott
  Does the "one-person, one-vote" principle require states to use voter population, as opposed to total population, when drawing state legislative districts?
• Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
  Are public-sector "agency shop" agreements unconstitutional under the First Amendment?
• Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin
  Does the use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions by the University of Texas violate the Equal Protection Clause?
• Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins
  Whether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of a federal statute.

Conference of January 15

• United States v. Texas (1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; and (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures.
• V.L. v. E.L. Whether the Full Faith and Credit Clause permits a court to deny recognition to an adoption judgment previously issued by a court from a sister state, based on the forum court’s de novo determination that the issuing court erred in applying its own state’s adoption law.
• Sissel v. Dep’t of Health & Human Services (1) Whether the Affordable Care Act’s tax on going without health insurance is a “Bill[] for raising Revenue” to which the Origination Clause applies; and (2) whether the Senate's gut-and-replace procedure was a constitutionally valid “amend [ment]” pursuant to the Origination Clause.

More Petitions »

• Whole Woman's Health v. Cole symposium
• Zubik v. Burwell symposium
• Fisher II symposium
• Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association
• One person, one vote and Evenwel