The Supreme Court has released its calendar for the April sitting, which begins on April 15. Unlike the February and March sittings, which will feature only six and nine hours of argument, respectively, the April sitting is scheduled to have a full slate of 12 oral arguments – two on each of the six days of the sitting.
The April sitting is perhaps most noteworthy for what it does not currently include: the challenge to the Trump administration’s decision to add a question about citizenship to the 2020 census. The justices had originally been scheduled to hear a dispute over evidence in the case on February 19, but last month the justices removed the case from their oral argument calendar after a federal trial court in New York ruled against the government on the merits. The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to bypass a federal appeals court and review that ruling this term, either in April or a special argument session in May; the justices are expected to announce this month whether they will do so.
A full list of cases scheduled for oral argument in April, along with a brief summary of the issues in each case, follows the jump.
Iancu v. Brunetti (April 15): A First Amendment challenge to a federal law that bans the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks
Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian (April 15): In a lawsuit alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, whether a private plaintiff has to show that a person who made a false statement intended to do so, or whether it is enough that the false statement was made negligently
Parker Drilling Management Services v. Newton (April 16): Whether California’s overtime and wage laws apply to drilling rigs on the outer continental shelf under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kaestner Family Trust (April 16): Whether the Constitution’s due process clause bars a state from taxing a trust when beneficiaries of the trust are in-state residents
United States v. Davis (April 17): Whether a federal criminal law that bars the use or carrying of a gun during a “crime of violence,” which is defined as any crime that involves “a substantial risk that physical force” may be used against someone or something, is so vague that it is unconstitutional
McDonough v. Smith (April 17): When the statute of limitations begins to run for a federal civil rights claim alleging that prosecutors fabricated evidence in a criminal proceeding
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media (April 22): The meaning of the term “confidential” in the Freedom of Information Act
Fort Bend County v. Davis (April 22): Whether federal courts have the power to review federal employment discrimination claims if the employee did not first file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Mitchell v. Wisconsin (April 23): A challenge to the constitutionality of a state law that allows law-enforcement officials to draw blood from unconscious drivers without a warrant
Rehaif v. United States (April 23): Whether, when the government prosecutes a noncitizen who is in the United States illegally for violating a federal law prohibiting him from having guns or ammunition, the government must show that the defendant knew he was in the country illegally
Quarles v. United States (April 24): Timing of the intent required to commit burglary for purposes of a “violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act
Taggart v. Lorenzen (April 24): Whether a creditor can be held in contempt if he believes in good faith that a bankruptcy discharge does not apply
This post was also published on SCOTUSblog.