The Supreme Court: Oral Arguments

Salazar v. Paramount Global | 10/14/26 | Docket #: 25-459

25-459 SALAZAR V. PARAMOUNT GLOBAL
DECISION BELOW: 133 F.4th 642
CERT. GRANTED 1/26/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
     
The Video Privacy Protection Act
(“
VPPA
”) 
contains a one-sentence liability clause. It
prohibits a
“
video tape service provider
” 
from
“
knowingly disclos[ing], to any person,
personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider.
” 
18
 U.S.C. § 
2710
(b)(
1
). The statute defines
“
consumer
” 
broadly to include a
“
subscriber of goods or
services from a video tape service provider.
” 
Id.
 § 
2710
(a)(
1
). It defines
“
personally identifiable
information
” 
to include information that
“
identifies a person as having requested or obtained
specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider.
” 
Id.
§ 
2710
(a)(
3
). And it
defines
“
video tape service provider
” 
to include those in the business of delivering audiovisual
materials.
Id
. § 
2710
(a)(
4
).
      
Paramount is a
“
video tape service provider.
” 
Both courts below assumed as much. Michael
Salazar subscribed to Paramount
’
s online newsletter, which he used to view videos. Paramount
then disclosed Mr. Salazar
’
s Facebook ID and his video-watching history to Facebook. That
information counts as
“
personally identifiable information.
” 
Again, both courts below assumed
as much.
     
The question here is whether the phrase
“
goods or services from a video tape service
provider,
” 
as used in the VPPA
’
s definition of
“
consumer,
” 
refers to
all
of a video tape service
provider
’
s goods or services or only to its
audiovisual
goods or services.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-5748

Beaird v. United States | 10/13/26 | Docket #: 25-5343

25-5343 BEAIRD V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 2025 WL 1410410
THE MOTION OF PETITIONER FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS IS GRANTED. THE
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI IS GRANTED LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION:
WHETHER
STINSON V. UNITED STATES
,
508
U. S.
36
(
1993
), STILL CORRECTLY STATES THE RULE
FOR THE DEFERENCE THAT COURTS MUST GIVE THE COMMENTARY TO THE SENTENCING
GUIDELINES.
Order of May
6
,
2026
ANTHONY J. DICK, ESQUIRE, OF WASHINGTON, D. C., IS INVITED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THIS
CASE, AS
AMICUS CURIAE
, IN SUPPORT OF THE POSITION THAT
STINSON V. UNITED

STATES
,
508
U. S.
36
(
1993
), STILL CORRECTLY STATES THE RULE FOR THE DEFERENCE THAT COURTS
MUST GIVE THE COMMENTARY TO THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES.


 
 
 
 
CERT. GRANTED 4/20/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
I. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) comports with the Second Amendment?
II. Whether
Stinson v. United States
still accurately state the level of deference due to the
Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?
III. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) permits conviction for the possession of any firearm that 
has ever crossed state lines at any time in the indefinite past, and, if so, if it is facially
unconstitutional?

LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 24-10764

Department of Air Force v. Prutehi Guahan | 10/07/26 | Docket #: 25-579

25-579 DEPT. OF AIR FORCE V. GUAHAN
DECISION BELOW: 128 F.4th 1089
CERT. GRANTED 3/9/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901
et seq
., is a
comprehensive environmental statute providing for cradle-to-grave regulation of hazardous
waste through a scheme of cooperative federalism. Under RCRA, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency may authorize state and territorial regulators to administer
permitting programs for hazardous-waste-treatment facilities in their respective jurisdictions,
including facilities operated by the federal government. The questions presented are as
follows:
1. Whether the federal government's submission to a state or territorial regulator of an
application to renew a RCRA permit is "final agency action" that is immediately reviewable
under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 704.
2. Whether the federal government must comply with the general environmental-
review procedures of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq
.,
before submitting a permit-renewal application under RCRA, which sets forth its own specific
procedures to review environmental impacts in the context of hazardous-waste treatment.
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-16613

Anderson v. Intel Corp. Investment Policy Committee | 10/06/26 | Docket #: 25-498

25-498 ANDERSON V. INTEL CORP. INV.
DECISION BELOW: 137 F.4th 1015
CERT. GRANTED 1/16/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), a plan fiduciary is
subject to a "[p]rudent man standard of care," which requires the fiduciary to "discharge his
duties with respect to a plan" with the "care, skill, prudence, and diligence" that a prudent
person "acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use." 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)
(1)). As this Court has recognized, a court's inquiry into whether a plaintiff has adequately
alleged that a fiduciary breached ERISA's duty of prudence "will necessarily be context specific"
because the content of that duty "turns on 'the circumstances ... prevailing' at the time the
fiduciary acts."
Fifth Third Bancorp. v. Dudenhoeffer
, 573 U.S. 409, 425 (2014) (quoting 29
U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1)(B)). As a result, "categorical" pleading rules are "inconsistent with the
context-specific inquiry that ERISA requires."
Hughes v. Nw. Univ
., 595 U.S.170, 173 (2022).
The question presented is: Whether, for claims predicated on fund underperformance,
pleading that an ERISA fiduciary failed to use the requisite "care, skill, prudence, or diligence"
under the circumstances and thus breached ERISA's duty of prudence when investing plan
assets requires alleging a "meaningful benchmark."
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 22-16268

Johnson v. United States Congress | 10/05/26 | Docket #: 25-735

25-735 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES CONGRESS
DECISION BELOW: 151 F.4th 1287
CERT. GRANTED 4/6/2026
QUESTION PRESENTED:
Did the Veterans' Judicial Review Act strip district courts of the jurisdiction, recognized
by this Court in
Johnson v. Robison
, 415 U.S. 361 (1974), to hear challenges to the
constitutionality of acts of Congress affecting veterans' benefits?
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 23-10682