In Buck v. Davis, the Supreme Court is considering whether an African American man who was sentenced to death following a hearing that included racially biased testimony from an expert witness should be allowed to appeal a district court’s refusal to undo the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition.
You are here
In Chisholm v. Two Unnamed Petitioners, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to grant review to consider whether it violated the Due Process Clause for two Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices to have participated in a case that asked them to decide whether interest groups that had played a critical role in their own election (and with which they may have had even more direct involvement) had engaged in illegal conduct in connection with another campaign.
In MetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering a challenge to the Financial Stability Oversight Council’s designation of MetLife as a systemically important non-bank financial institution.
In National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc., the Supreme Court is being asked to consider the proper interpretation of a provision of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA), the federal law that governs the designation of acting officers to temporarily fill vacancies that can only be permanently filled following Senate confirmation.
In Ohio Democratic Party v. Husted, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is considering whether the elimination of Ohio’s “Golden Week,” a five-day period during which voters are able to register and vote on the same day at the beginning of early in-person voting, violates the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Peña Rodriguez v. Colorado, the Supreme Court is considering whether a state no-impeachment rule can constitutionally bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
In Rosillo v. Holten, the Supreme Court is being asked to grant review to consider whether the federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over an appeal when the notice of appeal incorrectly identifies the order to be reviewed, but contains clear contextual indications as to which order is being appealed.
In United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether the executive branch acted lawfully when it reimbursed health care insurers for cost-sharing reductions as it was required to do by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), as well as whether the House of Representatives had standing to bring such a case against the executive branch in the first place.
United States v. Texas centered on the legality of President Obama’s 2014 executive action on immigration.
In West Virginia v. EPA, states and others are challenging the EPA’s Clean Power Plan rule (CPP), which established emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to limit CO2 emissions from existing power plants. The goal of these guidelines is to achieve significant reductions in CO2 emissions by 2030 while offering states and utilities substantial flexibility and latitude in achieving these reductions.