Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
Whether, as applied to Respondent, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2) is unconstitutional under the Suspension Clause, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez
Does a dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim count as a strike under 28 U.S.C. §1915(g)?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Procedure
Nasrallah v. Barr, Attorney General
Whether the courts of appeals possess jurisdiction to review factual findings underlying denials of withholding (and deferral) of removal relief.
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Procedure
Seila Law, LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s structure, which vests significant executive power in a single director who the U.S. President can only remove for cause, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers and, if the CFPB’s structure constitutes a violation of the separation of powers, whether the provision deemed unconstitutional can be severed from the Dodd-Frank Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Bachiller v. United States
(1) Whether Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), applies retroactively to a 28 U.S.C. §2255 motion? (2) Whether the residual clause of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3) is unconstitutionally vague pursuant to Johnson? (3) Whether the Eleventh Circuit's rule that reasonable jurists could not debate an issue foreclosed by binding circuit precedent?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Contreras v. United States
Whether the Texas offense of aggravated assault is equivalent to the generic form of that offense and whether 18 U.S.C 924(a) provides for criminal liability in the absence of a showing that the defendant knew of his felony status.
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Cook v. United States
Whether § 922(g)(3) is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Duhart v. United States
Is the residual clause definition of “crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(3)(B) unconstitutionally vague?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Enclarity, Inc., et al v. Fulton
Whether faxes that only request information and propose no commercial transaction with recipients are “advertisements” under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act which prohibits the sending of any "unsolicited advertisemet[s]" to fax machines. 47 U.S.C. § 227(B)(1)(C).
Area(s) of Law:- Civil Law
Escourse-Westbrook v. United States
Whether the Supreme Court's decisions in United States v. Davis, deciding 18 U.S.C § 924(c)(3)(B)'s definition of "crime of violence" is constitutionally vague, will retroactively apply to cases on review and whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying a certificate of appealability to help resolve the issue.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Gilbert v. United States
(1) Whether substantive reasonableness review requires or permits the courts of appeals to “substantively second guess” the district court and/or to “reweigh the sentencing factors”? (2) Whether 18 U.S.C. §924(a) provides for criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate commerce absent proof that they knew of their felon status, or of the firearm’s movement in interstate commerce?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Greer v. United States
1. Whether—in light of intervening authority in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)—Congress may rely on Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977) to criminalize intrastate possession of a firearm on the sole basis that the firearm once moved through interstate commerce. 2. Whether the “knowingly” provision of § 924(a)(2) applies to both the possession and status elements of a § 922(g) crime, as has been urged by then-Judge, now Justice Gorsuch, or whether it applies only to the possession element, as has been held by the courts.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Hale v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. §924(a) provides for criminal penalties to felons who possess firearms in interstate commerce absent proof that they knew of their felon status, or of the firearm’s movement in interstate commerce?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Herrera v. United States
(1) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague in light of Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018)? (2) If a conduct-based approach applies, whether a conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery charge based on a stash-house robbery sting qualifies as a crime of violence?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Householder v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., et al
Whether partisan gerrymandering cases lack justiciability and, if not, what standards govern such claims.
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Humbert v. United States
1. Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit should have granted COA as to whether petitioner’s Fla. Stat. § 893.13 drug offense qualifies within the ACCA’s definition of a “serious drug offense” where mens rea is not even an implied element of the definition of a “serious drug offense” in § 924(e) or 4B1.2(b), according to their precedential opinion in United States v. Smith, 775 F.3d 1262 (11th. Cir. 2014)? 2. Whether the Supreme Court should grant certiorari for a Florida Conviction for resisting arrest with violence Fla. Stat. § 843.01 to now consider if it qualifies under the ACCA after its most recent decision in Franklin v. United States, No. 17-8401? 3. Whether the Petitioner is warranted GVR in light of Franklin v. United States?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Jackson v. United States
(1) Does an inaccurate jury instruction on an element of a crime violate due process of law? (2) Does the Constitution allow a district judge to effectively nullify a jury finding of acquittal?
Area(s) of Law:- Sentencing
Lin v. United States
Is the residual clause at 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) void for vagueness? Should this Court hold petitioner’s case for a ruling in United States v. Davis, 903 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2018), cert. granted, 139 S. Ct. 782 (2019) (No. 18-431)?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Martin v. United States
(1) Whether reasonable jurists could debate whether Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) and Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) invalidated the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). (2) Whether the residual clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally void for vagueness for the same reasons that this Court found 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) void for vagueness in Dimaya.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
McCormick v. United States
Whether the Fourth Circuit's judgment should be vacated and this case remanded for further review in light of this Court's recent opinion in Rehaif v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 2191, 204 L. Ed. 2d 594 (2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Mendoza v. United States
Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B)’s definition of “crime of violence” exists as unconstitutionally vague and, in the event the Court finds the definition of a “crime of violence” does not violate the vagueness doctrine, whether application of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B) exists as unconstitutional where a court dispenses with the requirement that a jury determine a defendant’s guilt for each element of the offense of a conviction.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Parks v. United States
Whether a new trial is warranted where the District Court failed to instruct the jury that, in order to convict a person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), it must find that the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he possessed a firearm and “knew he had the relevant status when he possessed it.” Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (June 21, 2019).
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Robinson v. United States
Whether North Carolina breaking and Entering, which criminalizes the breaking and entering into "any other structure designed to house or secure within it any activity or property," is broader than the Armed Career Criminal Act burglary.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Rodriguez v. United States
1. Whether the residual clause in Section 924(c)(3)(B) is void for vagueness based on the holdings in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015) and Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018); 2. and, if so, whether the unconstitutional vagueness of the residual clause in Section 924(c)(3)(B) can be cured by resort to a conduct-based approach instead of the categorical approach?
Area(s) of Law:- Constitutional Law
Solomon v. United States
(1) If the Supreme Court in United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019) holds §924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutionally vague, is that ruling retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review? (2) If the court in Davis reinterprets §924(c)(3)(B) to require a “conduct-based” approach because the statute is unconstitutionally vague under the categorical approach, does a successive §2255 petition challenging a conviction under the unconstitutional categorical approach “contain . . . a new rule of constitutional law” as required by §2255(h)(2)?
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law
Webster v. United States
Whether a Wisconsin burglary statute provides different factual means and thus different ways of committing a single crime that would make Wisconsin burglary broader than generic burglary and unable to qualify as a prior conviction under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Area(s) of Law:- Criminal Law