We expect orders from the May 25 conference on Tuesday at 9:30 a.m. There is also a possibility of opinions on Tuesday. On Thursday the justices will meet for their June 1 conference; our list of "petitions to watch" for that conference will be available soon.

• Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami
  (1) The city of Miami is an "aggrieved person" authorized to bring suit under the Fair Housing Act; and (2) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred in concluding that the city's complaints, charging that the banks engaged in discriminatory conduct that led to a disproportionate number of foreclosures and vacancies in majority-minority neighborhoods, which diminished the city’s property-tax revenue and increased the demand for police, fire, and other municipal services, met the FHA's proximate-cause requirement based solely on the finding that the city's alleged financial injuries were foreseeable results of the banks' misconduct; proximate cause under the FHA requires “some direct relation between the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged”; the lower courts should define, in the first instance, the contours of proximate cause under the FHA and decide how that standard applies to the city's claims for lost property-tax revenue and increased municipal expenses.
• Moore v. Texas
  By rejecting the habeas court's application of current medical diagnostic standards and by following the standard under Ex parte Briseno, including the nonclinical Briseno factors, the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals does not comport with the Eighth Amendment and Supreme Court precedents.
• Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado
  When a juror makes a clear statement indicating that he or she relied on racial stereotypes or animus to convict a criminal defendant, the Sixth Amendment requires that the no-impeachment rule give way in order to permit the trial court to consider the evidence of the juror's statement and any resulting denial of the jury trial guarantee.
• Murr v. Wisconsin
  Whether, in a regulatory taking case, the “parcel as a whole” concept as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, establishes a rule that two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels must be combined for takings analysis purposes.
• Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
  Whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses when the state has no valid Establishment Clause concern.

Array ( [0] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => association-des-eleveurs-de-canards-et-doies-du-quebec-v-harris [post_title] => Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Québec v. Harris [ID] => 209653 ) [1] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => el-nahal-v-yassky [post_title] => El-Nahal v. Yassky [ID] => 250982 ) [2] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => elmore-v-holbrook [post_title] => Elmore v. Holbrook [ID] => 243232 ) [3] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => georgiou-v-united-states [post_title] => Georgiou v. United States [ID] => 231013 ) [4] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => gordon-v-bank-of-america-n-a [post_title] => Gordon v. Bank of America, N.A. [ID] => 213021 ) [5] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => gordon-v-consumer-financial-protection-bureau [post_title] => Gordon v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [ID] => 248868 ) [6] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => little-sisters-of-the-poor-home-for-the-aged-v-burwell [post_title] => Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell [ID] => 231204 ) [7] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => luis-v-united-states [post_title] => Luis v. United States [ID] => 221255 ) [8] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => moodys-corp-v-federal-home-loan-bank-of-boston [post_title] => Moody's Corp. v. Federal Home Loan Bank of Boston [ID] => 245997 ) [9] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => new-mexico-association-of-nonpublic-schools-v-moses [post_title] => New Mexico Association of Nonpublic Schools v. Moses [ID] => 243046 ) [10] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => schulman-v-lexisnexis-risk-and-information-analytics-group-inc [post_title] => Schulman v. LexisNexis Risk and Information Analytics Group, Inc. [ID] => 243819 ) [11] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => smithkline-beecham-corp-v-king-drug-co-of-florence-inc [post_title] => SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. King Drug Co. of Florence, Inc. [ID] => 239040 ) [12] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => tilton-v-securities-exchange-commission [post_title] => Tilton v. Securities and Exchange Commission [ID] => 251632 ) [13] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => trudeau-v-united-states [post_title] => Trudeau v. United States [ID] => 245338 ) [14] => stdClass Object ( [post_name] => vanessa-g-v-tennessee-dept-of-childrens-services [post_title] => Vanessa G. v. Tennessee Dep’t of Children’s Services [ID] => 242382 ) )

Conference of May 25, 2017

• El-Nahal v. Yassky (1) Whether an individual whose location was tracked by a GPS device placed in his vehicle has Fourth Amendment standing to challenge that tracking if he was not in possession of the vehicle when the GPS tracking device was installed; and (2) whether there is a Fourth Amendment right against the government searching an individual's tracking information to investigate criminal activity without a warrant.
• Gordon v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (1) Whether a federal official may retroactively ratify an ultra vires government action when: (a) no federal official was authorized to perform the act at the time it was initially undertaken; (b) the purported ratification does not include an examination of any facts related to the act performed; or (c) the ratification purports to encompass not only the initial act but also federal court rulings entered in response to the act; and (2) whether federal courts possess subject matter jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution to hear a case filed at the behest of an individual who, from the time suit was filed until judgment was entered, lacked authority to vindicate the executive branch's interest in seeing that the law is obeyed.
• Tilton v. Securities and Exchange Commission (1) Whether Congress authorized federal district court jurisdiction over appointments clause challenges to Securities and Exchange Commission administrative law judges; and (2) whether SEC ALJs are inferior officers within the meaning of the appointments clause.

More Petitions »

• Symposium on October Term 2016's racial-gerrymandering decisions
• A close look at Judge Neil Gorsuch's jurisprudence
• Nominations of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court
• Profiling potential nominees to succeed Justice Scalia
• Symposium before the oral argument in Lee v. Tam
• The Court after Scalia
• Symposium before the oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Pauley