In Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami and in Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami — consolidated for review — the Supreme Court is considering whether a city government may sue the alleged perpetrators over racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.
You are here
In Darweesh v. Trump, the district court for the Eastern District of New York is being asked to grant a preliminary injunction blocking President Trump’s travel and refugee ban on the grounds that it violates the Religion Clause of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the ban on nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas contained in the INA.
In Expressions Hair Design, et al. v. Schneiderman, et al., the Court is considering whether the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech is violated by a New York state law that makes it illegal for a business to charge a customer using a credit card more for an item than its posted price.
In Hernández v. Mesa, the Supreme Court is considering whether a U.S. Border Patrol agent can be sued for fatally shooting a Mexican teenager across the U.S.-Mexico border as a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
In Hodes & Nauser M.D.s, P.A., et al. v. Schmidt & Howe, the Kansas Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether Sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights protect a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.
In Lee v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering when the Sixth Amendment requires vacating the criminal convictions of noncitizens who pleaded guilty after their attorneys failed to advise them that doing so would result in deportation.
In McCrory v. Harris, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the North Carolina legislature’s use of a fixed racial quota to draw majority-minority congressional districts violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection.
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 Pavan, et al. v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Arkansas Supreme Court properly concluded that Arkansas may, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, prevent a mother’s same-sex spouse
PHH Corporation, et al. v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau involves a challenge to the leadership structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”), an agency created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act to end the longstanding fragmentation of responsibility for consumer financial protection that contributed greatly to the 2008 financial crisis.
In United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering 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 has standing to bring such a case against the executive branch in the first place.
In Vo v. Gee, et al., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana is considering whether a state law that requires marriage license applicants to present a birth certificate, but only allows individuals born in the United States to receive a waiver of that requirement, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of the fundamental right to marry.
In Walker v. Texas, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any person from being prosecuted for the same offense more than once, bars a state prosecution for a criminal offense when the defendant has already been prosecuted for the same offense in federal court.
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.